Rising Oil Prices Beginning To Hurt The Economy! Shockers!

[Kathianne]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Rising-oil-prices-beginning-apf-1311732829.html?x=0

I mean did they get some memo that $1.20 rise per gallon in less than 6 months might come with a price to the economy?


Paul Wiseman, AP Economics Writer, On Wednesday April 6, 2011, 6:50 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just when companies have finally stepped up hiring, rising oil prices are threatening to halt the U.S. economy's gains.

Some economists are scaling back their estimates for growth this year, in part because flat wages have left households struggling to pay higher gasoline prices.

Oil has topped $108 a barrel, the highest price since 2008. Regular unleaded gasoline now goes for an average $3.69 a gallon, according to AAA's daily fuel gauge survey, up 86 cents from a year ago...

$3.69? Not in weeks:

http://www.chicagogasprices.com/






Chicago Avg

4.110

[KarlMarx]

The Fed's qualitative easing policy (aka stimulus) is 90% of the reason why we're seeing such high prices. Ethanol has done nothing to keep the price of gasoline low but everything to push food prices higher.

It's very frustrating to see a bunch of Harvard educated know it alls run the country into the ground perfectly shielded from the consequences of their decisions. This bunch is cooking up yet another hoodwink scheme to pull the wool over our eyes

[Joe Steel]

Another Republican failure. The price increase is related exclusively to speculation in the futures market (in large measure by the Koch brothers.) If Republicans weren't obstructing regulation, this wouldn't be happening.

[fj1200]

Another Republican failure. The price increase is related exclusively to speculation in the futures market (in large measure by the Koch brothers.) If Republicans weren't obstructing regulation, this wouldn't be happening.

:laugh: You still believe that S'? Your talking point to words posted density is sky high; you must get paid by the unsubstantiated claim.

[Joe Steel]

:laugh: You still believe that S'? Your talking point to words posted density is sky high; you must get paid by the unsubstantiated claim.

Only because it's true.

[logroller]

Only because it's true.

People believed the Titanic unsinkable; however, the facts are contrary.

[fj1200]

Only because it's true.

I just wonder if it's naivete or plain hatred on your part.

[NightTrain]

I just wonder if it's naivete or plain hatred on your part.

Willful ignorance. He's always been that way.

He'll get cornered, bail and return a month later in another thread. Much like Gabby, and about as unintelligent.

[Joe Steel]

Educate yourselves.

Start here:


Speculation on energy futures, including oil, is at an all-time high, jumping 64 percent even since 2008. Speculation was blamed by both Republicans and Democrats three years ago for oil prices, and even with conservatives’ tea party embrace of Wall Street today, several Republican congressmen, and conservative leaders have acknowledged that speculation is a driver of oil prices.

Crude Profiteering: An Overview Of The Price Of Unregulated Oil Speculators (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/03/21/crude-oil-profiteering/)


The CFTC faces another threat from Republicans on a different front. H.R.1, the House Republican approved spending plan for the remainder of 2011, includes a nearly one-third cut in the CFTC’s budget. Such a draconian cut would require the CFTC to lay off more than 30 percent of its staff. Moreover, House “Republicans are threatening repercussions for regulators that ignore their concerns.”

“We’d have to have significant curtailment of our staff and resources,” CFTC Chairman Gensler said. “We would not be able to police…or ensure transparent markets in futures or swaps.”

The Republican effort to take cops off the oil trade beat would allow speculators to continue to drive up prices, ensuring even bigger profits for oil companies and Wall Street bankers.

[fj1200]

Educate yourselves.

Start here:


The same appears to be true today. Speculation on energy futures, including oil, is at an all-time high, jumping 64 percent even since 2008. Speculation was blamed by both Republicans and Democrats three years ago for oil prices, and even with conservatives’ tea party embrace of Wall Street today, several Republican congressmen, and conservative leaders have acknowledged that speculation is a driver of oil prices.

They were wrong then and they're wrong now or is your entire argument based on some Republicans agreeing with some Democrats?

Below is the entire reason for high oil prices,

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

Take out the supply/demand driven highs and lows and the graph here (http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html) tracks closely.

[Joe Steel]

They were wrong then and they're wrong now or is your entire argument based on some Republicans agreeing with some Democrats?

World supply of oil is adequate. Speculation is the next best reason.


Below is the entire reason for high oil prices,

http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au3650nyb.html

Take out the supply/demand driven highs and lows and the graph here (http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html) tracks closely.


Are you saying oil prices are driven by gold prices?

Maybe (and more likely) they're both driven by speculation.

[fj1200]

World supply of oil is adequate. Speculation is the next best reason.

No, it's only the next best populist rhetoric based on feelings and ill-thought out reasoning.


Are you saying oil prices are driven by gold prices?

Maybe (and more likely) they're both driven by speculation.

Speculation seems to be your pat answer for things you are not able to explain or just don't like.

I'm saying that two commodities, and many of the others if you've been paying attention, will trade in tandem based on monetary policies set out by the dominant central bank in the world. Hint, it's the Federal Reserve.

Here is the 10-year copper chart...
http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/copper.html
... feel free to choose the drop down menu and take note of all the other commodities with similar price graphs. I would graphically prove my point and put to rest all of this speculation talk except that I suck at posting images. :(

Would you be contending that virtually every commodity with price changes over the past 10 years is solely due to speculation?

[revelarts]

Causes of Oil price hikes...
"speculation in the futures market"
A little bit sure

"Fed's qualitative easing policy (aka stimulus) "
NO Doubt! making the dollar worth less and less

Oil Companys and Cartels seizing an opportunity to profit take under the thin cover of Mid-east unrest
Ya think? Yep.

What are the oil companies in biz for? making more money. not keeping prices low for the consumer. It's what the market will bear folks.

[Joe Steel]

Would you be contending that virtually every commodity with price changes over the past 10 years is solely due to speculation?

Not always. Shortages can result in higher prices. As I said, though, oil supplies are adequate.

[fj1200]

Causes of Oil price hikes...
"speculation in the futures market"
A little bit sure

Speculators speculate both ways, why only upwards?


"Fed's qualitative easing policy (aka stimulus) "
NO Doubt! making the dollar worth less and less

Fed mismanagement goes back far further than the relatively recent QE easing, check the dates.


Oil Companys and Cartels seizing an opportunity to profit take under the thin cover of Mid-east unrest
Ya think? Yep.

No, this is a long-term trend that spans short-term news stories. What opportunity were they seizing when oil was under $20 ten years ago and when it cratered from $130 down to $40 a couple of years ago?


What are the oil companies in biz for? making more money. not keeping prices low for the consumer. It's what the market will bear folks.

You always seem to forget a little thing called competition.

[fj1200]

Not always. Shortages can result in higher prices. As I said, though, oil supplies are adequate.

Pay attention, it has nothing to do with supplies. You didn't check any of those other graphs did you? But I don't see why you would because they completely destroy your position.

If only someone could show me how to post those graphs...

[Joe Steel]

Pay attention, it has nothing to do with supplies. You didn't check any of those other graphs did you? But I don't see why you would because they completely destroy your position.

If only someone could show me how to post those graphs...

Forget the graphs. All they'll show is price increases. You've got to explain the price increases. What causes them?

[fj1200]

Forget the graphs. All they'll show is price increases. You've got to explain the price increases. What causes them?

:facepalm: I already have.

The graphs destroy your argument, you explain price increases in oil by claiming "speculators," for you to have any credibility you need to claim speculation in almost every other commodity and that claim would fall flat.

Price increases are due to monetary inflation; gold is the best indicator of central bank performance. The quantity theory of money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money) is the theory that money supply has a direct, proportional relationship with the price level.

[revelarts]

Speculators speculate both ways, why only upwards?
I didn't say it didn't go both ways FJ. So you agree in some case it does PUSH PRICES UP. Great we have some agreement here.



Fed mismanagement goes back far further than the relatively recent QE easing, check the dates.
True, it has but also check the raw numbers of Bills pumping into the market Since Bush/Obama. Trillions and trillions and trillions



No, this is a long-term trend that spans short-term news stories. What opportunity were they seizing when oil was under $20 ten years ago and when it cratered from $130 down to $40 a couple of years ago?

You negate your on comments, this is a LONG term Increase. look at your own Charts. With Short Dips and Profit taking peaks.




You always seem to forget a little thing called competition.

LOL LOL LOL
You mean EXXON-MOBIL-BP-Chevon-ConPhillips-Etc Group?

[fj1200]

I didn't say it didn't go both ways FJ. So you agree in some case it does PUSH PRICES UP. Great we have some agreement here.

I didn't say that. Speculation allows liquidity and helps create those who want to take the opposite side of a hedge.


True, it has but also check the raw numbers of Bills pumping into the market Since Bush/Obama. Trillions and trillions and trillions

I didn't claim otherwise, only stated that it was a trend that far preceded the recent QE. The velocity of money is far lower now than it was prior which will hold down potential inflation, look the hell out when a real recovery starts pumping though.


You negate your on comments, this is a LONG term Increase. look at your own Charts. With Short Dips and Profit taking peaks.

How so? My comments are not based on a price chart based on nothing more than rise on "speculation." You have to claim speculation on all commodities like Joe to be consistent.

"Profit taking peaks"? That's such a throw away line it means practically nothing.


LOL LOL LOL
You mean EXXON-MOBIL-BP-Chevon-ConPhillips-Etc Group?

What of it? That's quite a few market participants you've listed but completely ignore massive energy regulations that act as a barrier to entry for new market participants. Not to mention the massive market power of OPEC. Save your oligopoly listing for someone else please.

[Joe Steel]

I already have.

The graphs destroy your argument, you explain price increases in oil by claiming "speculators," for you to have any credibility you need to claim speculation in almost every other commodity and that claim would fall flat.

Price increases are due to monetary inflation; gold is the best indicator of central bank performance. The quantity theory of money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money) is the theory that money supply has a direct, proportional relationship with the price level.

You have only a rudimentary understanding of economics.

While the money supply can have an effect on price increases, it doesn't at low levels of capacity utilization. At low levels of utilization, changes in the money supply result it increases in the supply of the commodity at issue available to the market. Only at high levels of utilization, when no more of the commodity is available to the market, do increases in the money supply result in price increases.

[fj1200]

You have only a rudimentary understanding of economics.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


While the money supply can have an effect on price increases, it doesn't at low levels of capacity utilization. At low levels of utilization, changes in the money supply result it increases in the supply of the commodity at issue available to the market. Only at high levels of utilization, when no more of the commodity is available to the market, do increases in the money supply result in price increases.

You're arguing low levels of capacity utilization at every point over the last 10 years? That alone proves you're wrong but here you go, take a refresher course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4

t_LWQQrpSc4

Excess money in the system will ultimately filter out in higher prices.

[revelarts]

What of it? That's quite a few market participants you've listed but completely ignore massive energy regulations that act as a barrier to entry for new market participants. Not to mention the massive market power of OPEC. Save your oligopoly listing for someone else please.

Please convince me that I'm wrong about oligopoly. I'd love to believe that big oil was operating only on principals of a free market. And NOT colluding and paying off... um donating to politicians to Create the regulations that act as a barrier to entry for new market participants. (There's also Oil company executives doing revolving door positions in Fed Agency post making regs and doing selective enforcement)
The Oil Companies are also supporting, protecting, encouraging the use of US $$$ ,military and political cover to OPEC regimes. And sometimes even shadow directing OPEC. Not much of a Market Adversary even if none of that where true.

I really would like to think that's it's a text book free market world full of integrity at the highest levels of all Big Oil companies. With the only problem being Dum/democratic/evrio gov't regs and OPEC . Man that would be great.

I'm very serious. I don't like the idea of oligopolies but from what I've read to date that's what we have FJ. I just can't make excuses them or turn a blind eye to what's been exposed anymore.

[fj1200]

Please convince me that I'm wrong about oligopoly. I'd love to believe that big oil was operating only on principals of a free market...
...
I'm very serious. I don't like the idea of oligopolies but from what I've read to date that's what we have FJ. I just can't make excuses them or turn a blind eye to what's been exposed anymore.

I am not concerned about the oil "oligopoly" as I think it's a natural progression of a highly capital intensive commodity type industry that includes huge environmental regulations. I also think it's natural where you have national markets. My biggest opposition was yours and Joe's insistence on the evils of speculation which holds no water.

You'll notice in my post you quoted that I stated many of your concerns already and agree with many more that you listed (even though I shortened your post) but not all ;), however like I said I'm not too concerned. Oil markets move up and down largely on events that are not of it's own making, the largest factor in my book has been the lack of sound central banking performance for the past 10 years. It's unfortunate that the Fed has been given a pass on the issue and that so many are quick to jump on the closest populist bandwagon that happens to have the closest fact pattern.

Their profit margins are also fairly thin historically which is completely overlooked when they post up some huge profits; If you have a large company it shouldn't be a shock when they have large profits.

[logroller]

I am not concerned about the oil "oligopoly" as I think it's a natural progression of a highly capital intensive commodity type industry that includes huge environmental regulations. I also think it's natural where you have national markets. My biggest opposition was yours and Joe's insistence on the evils of speculation which holds no water.

You'll notice in my post you quoted that I stated many of your concerns already and agree with many more that you listed (even though I shortened your post) but not all ;), however like I said I'm not too concerned. Oil markets move up and down largely on events that are not of it's own making, the largest factor in my book has been the lack of sound central banking performance for the past 10 years. It's unfortunate that the Fed has been given a pass on the issue and that so many are quick to jump on the closest populist bandwagon that happens to have the closest fact pattern.

Their profit margins are also fairly thin historically which is completely overlooked when they post up some huge profits; If you have a large company it shouldn't be a shock when they have large profits.

I couldn't agree more, and would like to add that in addition to the profits enjoyed by such companies, they too are exposed to high risk of losses. Managing that risk to maximize profit is demonstrated responsiblity, for which they deserve credit not denouncment. Additionally, some oil companies have found that being environmentally friendly and respecting the society in which they do business rewards proper behavior more, especially where favorable future relations are anticipated. Conversely, even the anticipation of increased government interference would have the opposite effect.

[logroller]

Please convince me that I'm wrong about oligopoly. I'd love to believe that big oil was operating only on principals of a free market. And NOT colluding and paying off... um donating to politicians to Create the regulations that act as a barrier to entry for new market participants. (There's also Oil company executives doing revolving door positions in Fed Agency post making regs and doing selective enforcement)
The Oil Companies are also supporting, protecting, encouraging the use of US $$$ ,military and political cover to OPEC regimes. And sometimes even shadow directing OPEC. Not much of a Market Adversary even if none of that where true.

I really would like to think that's it's a text book free market world full of integrity at the highest levels of all Big Oil companies. With the only problem being Dum/democratic/evrio gov't regs and OPEC . Man that would be great.

I'm very serious. I don't like the idea of oligopolies but from what I've read to date that's what we have FJ. I just can't make excuses them or turn a blind eye to what's been exposed anymore.

What if oligopoly is the most efficient, perhaps only effective market composition? If you look at the number of oil producers say 40yrs ago, I'm sure there were more. If I told you the cost of bringing a barrel of oil to market has increased 20-40 times over the same period, it may be easy to justify this as market fixing by the fewer players or envirowackos, when in reality the reason oil is more expensive to bring to market is because the oil is harder to get now. Were past our peak, the point where oil is maximally produced. Now we have less oil wells drilled and more technology and energy invested into existing wells to get at what is becoming increasingly expensive to bring to market. If you look at the energy out energy in ratio, Texas crude in the turn of the 20th century was around 20:1, now were around 1:2, meaning for every barrel of oil that makes it to our gas tank, 2 were withdrawn. Now you tell me, knowing the ratio is to become increasingly less favorable, are you anxious to jump into that market as a supplier?

We're not talking about a 35ft well in Pennsylvania farmland, we're talkng about multi-year, multimillion dollar investments that hopefully (fingers-crossed) produce oil at a profit before it runs dry and requires even more resource investment. Somehow we're still infatuated by the rogue texas driller rags-to-riches story, its just not realistic in today's world. Oligopoly is a market response to this decreasing resource availability, not the cause it.

[revelarts]

What if oligopoly is the most efficient, perhaps only effective market composition? If you look at the number of oil producers say 40yrs ago, I'm sure there were more. If I told you the cost of bringing a barrel of oil to market has increased 20-40 times over the same period, it may be easy to justify this as market fixing by the fewer players or envirowackos, when in reality the reason oil is more expensive to bring to market is because the oil is harder to get now. Were past our peak, the point where oil is maximally produced. Now we have less oil wells drilled and more technology and energy invested into existing wells to get at what is becoming increasingly expensive to bring to market. If you look at the energy out energy in ratio, Texas crude in the turn of the 20th century was around 20:1, now were around 1:2, meaning for every barrel of oil that makes it to our gas tank, 2 were withdrawn. Now you tell me, knowing the ratio is to become increasingly less favorable, are you anxious to jump into that market as a supplier?

We're not talking about a 35ft well in Pennsylvania farmland, we're talkng about multi-year, multimillion dollar investments that hopefully (fingers-crossed) produce oil at a profit before it runs dry and requires even more resource investment. Somehow we're still infatuated by the rogue texas driller rags-to-riches story, its just not realistic in today's world. Oligopoly is a market response to this decreasing resource availability, not the cause it.

That's the most impressive justification for the oil oligopoly I've heard. But monopoly/oligopoly is not really the market outcome that's best is it? Absolute power and all that.

[logroller]

That's the most impressive justification for the oil oligopoly I've heard. But monopoly/oligopoly is not really the market outcome that's best is it? Absolute power and all that.

Define "best". I buy all my gas at Chevron because I believe they are the "best" oil company. An opinion I formed given the company's service to their stated mission in accordance with a moral philosophy respecting human energy. But they aren't the cheapest, not by a long shot.

[fj1200]

What if oligopoly is the most efficient, perhaps only effective market composition? If you look at the number of oil producers say 40yrs ago, I'm sure there were more. If I told you the cost of bringing a barrel of oil to market has increased 20-40 times over the same period, it may be easy to justify this as market fixing by the fewer players or envirowackos, when in reality the reason oil is more expensive to bring to market is because the oil is harder to get now. Were past our peak, the point where oil is maximally produced. Now we have less oil wells drilled and more technology and energy invested into existing wells to get at what is becoming increasingly expensive to bring to market. If you look at the energy out energy in ratio, Texas crude in the turn of the 20th century was around 20:1, now were around 1:2, meaning for every barrel of oil that makes it to our gas tank, 2 were withdrawn. Now you tell me, knowing the ratio is to become increasingly less favorable, are you anxious to jump into that market as a supplier?

We're not talking about a 35ft well in Pennsylvania farmland, we're talkng about multi-year, multimillion dollar investments that hopefully (fingers-crossed) produce oil at a profit before it runs dry and requires even more resource investment. Somehow we're still infatuated by the rogue texas driller rags-to-riches story, its just not realistic in today's world. Oligopoly is a market response to this decreasing resource availability, not the cause it.

Nice post. Are you trying to take away my board title as Oil Company Shill?


That's the most impressive justification for the oil oligopoly I've heard. But monopoly/oligopoly is not really the market outcome that's best is it? Absolute power and all that.

You can't necessarily make that statement regarding oligopolies. Take away all of the government reg.s that may encourage the consolidation and you still have reasons why the market may tend that direction. Take away the emotional BIG OIL response and you still have examples that consolidate over time as the market matures and you need economies of scale and all of that. As I said before, I think that any market that goes national almost requires more concentration than if it's a primarily local service; cell phones for example would be almost useless to national travelers/business people if they had to deal with multiple suppliers over the country or had to deal with high roaming charges. As long as we can keep government reg.s from protecting oligopolies then we can be adequately served by fewer competitors.

[logroller]

Nice post. Are you trying to take away my board title as Oil Company Shill?


There's always room for two in an oligopoly.:laugh:

[Joe Steel]

You're arguing low levels of capacity utilization at every point over the last 10 years?

No.

[fj1200]

No.

Then you have no basis for your earlier comment; see bold below.


While the money supply can have an effect on price increases, it doesn't at low levels of capacity utilization. At low levels of utilization, changes in the money supply result it increases in the supply of the commodity at issue available to the market. Only at high levels of utilization, when no more of the commodity is available to the market, do increases in the money supply result in price increases.

While that is the most coherent point that I've ever seen from you it is still incorrect except the very first part where you happen to agree with me. You might want to take a second run at your argument; the idea you should be working with is "velocity."

[revelarts]

Define "best". I buy all my gas at Chevron because I believe they are the "best" oil company. An opinion I formed given the company's service to their stated mission in accordance with a moral philosophy respecting human energy. But they aren't the cheapest, not by a long shot.



You can't necessarily make that statement regarding oligopolies. Take away all of the government reg.s that may encourage the consolidation and you still have reasons why the market may tend that direction. Take away the emotional BIG OIL response and you still have examples that consolidate over time as the market matures and you need economies of scale and all of that. As I said before, I think that any market that goes national almost requires more concentration than if it's a primarily local service; cell phones for example would be almost useless to national travelers/business people if they had to deal with multiple suppliers over the country or had to deal with high roaming charges.

ok,
If I'm a Top shareholder in the one of the big oil companies, the "best" is where i make the most money and have the most control over the markets.
But what I mean by the best is what the folks that promote True free markets say creates the best of everyone in a universal sense. For owners workers and consumers.

they say
the free market is suppose to give the Widest range for entepenpuers. that's not what we have with big oil or energy in general. and the Oil companies love to have it so.

they say
Workers wages of the well manage companies will rise because the competition for quality people among rival corps will bring high wages and more benys for workers until a natural break point.
Not what we'd expect see the fewer a companies. except in very specialized area.

The rewards for innovation also become less with a smaller group of providers that have more incentive too collude for the maximum benifit of the small groups higher ups than for the customers or the employees.

These vast industries with a few players can and have artificially caped wages and artificially raised prices from time to time. (over the past few centuries really.)

Can and have produced inferior products that take a while to correct if at all, being practically sole sources.
Also we have the thing about "to big to fail" which I dont buy into but we see that the big Companies or Oligopolies themselves DO and have the power and influence to push gov'ts to support their HUGE failing biz operations. Effectively, stealing money from people who have already refused to purchase thier products even though , they, as you and FJ imply, can be more efficient and be a good natural outcome at a nat'l intn'l level.

finally some Free market promoters even say that because of a large multitude of free competition in the a free market you won't have large or unexpected shortages.

But with the oligopolies they can create the shortages themselves if they like. there's no true market force to stop them. We don't want to regulate someones biz. If they own the oil they can do with it what they want right?

that's what I'm talking about when i say the best. the Generally promoted True Free market virtues.



...As long as we can keep government reg.s from protecting oligopolies then we can be adequately served by fewer competitors.

Here's part of my point, what leverage do we have that matches the speed, focus, organization, moneyed clout and access to Washington's Representatives and the people in the regulatory agencies. The Oil companies have troops of people that wake up every morning with their only Job being to influence Washington in their direction. And they even pay people to influence and create fake (infiltrate?) enviro groups so even their efforts are bent in the cause of big oil in Washington. (BTW Peak oil is as big a scam as Global warming.)

I hope you see that my complaint about "BIG OIL" is more than emotional or knee jerk. It definitely ends with some Pretty Strong emotions, frustration mostly, but it doesn't start there for me. I'll assume your defense for them isn't emotion based either gentleman. And not just a Knee jerk defense of the status quo "that's Business". or that's the way things are.

you both focused on the "best" part of my previous comments but skipped what I think is vital to keep in mind. the "absolute control" part. you both mention the UPsides to oligopoly, sure Id' agree any large system if run by virtuous and wise people can bring Outstanding benefits all around. But as the founders warned the concentration of power into a few hands tends to corrupt. That's principal needs to respected when it comes to looking a "BIG OIL" and All of theses Large focused industries IMO gentlemen.

[fj1200]

ok,
If I'm a Top shareholder in the one of the big oil companies, the "best" is where i make the most money and have the most control over the markets.
But what I mean by the best is what the folks that promote True free markets say creates the best of everyone in a universal sense. For owners workers and consumers.

There's a difference between the goals of private enterprise, maximize shareholder value, and the ends of the free market, competition; You don't seem to be keeping them separate.


they say
the free market is suppose to give the Widest range for entepenpuers. that's not what we have with big oil or energy in general. and the Oil companies love to have it so.

I don't know if they say that but there are certain requirements to have an effective free market and sure, established businesses will sometimes prefer regulations as it increases the barriers to entry (a free-market requirement).


they say
Workers wages of the well manage companies will rise because the competition for quality people among rival corps will bring high wages and more benys for workers until a natural break point.
Not what we'd expect see the fewer a companies. except in very specialized area.

They do? I expect wages to be determined by the market and the marketability of an individual's skill set. I don't think the number of entrants in a particular market has the effect you think it does.


The rewards for innovation also become less with a smaller group of providers that have more incentive too collude for the maximum benifit of the small groups higher ups than for the customers or the employees.

Are you saying that there are no rewards for innovation now? There are always possibilities for smaller entrants but I would expect that they would be bought up by the larger entrants before too long.


These vast industries with a few players can and have artificially caped wages and artificially raised prices from time to time. (over the past few centuries really.)

They have? All the more reason to promote competition.


Can and have produced inferior products that take a while to correct if at all, being practically sole sources.
Also we have the thing about "to big to fail" which I dont buy into but we see that the big Companies or Oligopolies themselves DO and have the power and influence to push gov'ts to support their HUGE failing biz operations. Effectively, stealing money from people who have already refused to purchase thier products even though , they, as you and FJ imply, can be more efficient and be a good natural outcome at a nat'l intn'l level.

Are you just pulling stuff out of thin air now? Nobody is saying everything is utterly perfect but your enemy is not BIG OIL it's BIG GOVERNMENT.


finally some Free market promoters even say that because of a large multitude of free competition in the a free market you won't have large or unexpected shortages.

Have we had shortages in a free market system?


But with the oligopolies they can create the shortages themselves if they like. there's no true market force to stop them. We don't want to regulate someones biz. If they own the oil they can do with it what they want right?

I dispute that. You're confusing oligopolies with a cartel.


that's what I'm talking about when i say the best. the Generally promoted True Free market virtues.

I honestly think you are throwing anything into the ring whether it's related or not. Step back and ask yourself how much would truly be different if none of your complaints, real not imagined, existed? That would be an interesting thought experiment rather than the back and forth we've got going here.



Here's part of my point, what leverage do we have that matches the speed, focus, organization, moneyed clout and access to Washington's Representatives and the people in the regulatory agencies. The Oil companies have troops of people that wake up every morning with their only Job being to influence Washington in their direction. And they even pay people to influence and create fake (infiltrate?) enviro groups so even their efforts are bent in the cause of big oil in Washington. (BTW Peak oil is as big a scam as Global warming.)

Vote and create your own PAC to advance your cause.


I hope you see that my complaint about "BIG OIL" is more than emotional or knee jerk. It definitely ends with some Pretty Strong emotions, frustration mostly, but it doesn't start there for me. I'll assume your defense for them isn't emotion based either gentleman. And not just a Knee jerk defense of the status quo "that's Business". or that's the way things are.

I don't defend the status quo, I believe in focusing on the real problem.


you both focused on the "best" part of my previous comments but skipped what I think is vital to keep in mind. the "absolute control" part. you both mention the UPsides to oligopoly, sure Id' agree any large system if run by virtuous and wise people can bring Outstanding benefits all around. But as the founders warned the concentration of power into a few hands tends to corrupt. That's principal needs to respected when it comes to looking a "BIG OIL" and All of theses Large focused industries IMO gentlemen.

Like I said focus on the REAL concentration of power.

[revelarts]

FJ, Um Urr
I don't know what to say. We were having a fair back and forth but ..
Um OK.

{Sarcasm Alert}
Sure , I'll just pretend to drink the kool-aid for a minute here.

There no problems, real or imagined with oligopolies FJ, ever.
Big companies are goood for everybody all the time and never do wrong.
Those aren't the oil company oligopoly/cartel issues I was looking for.
{Sarcasm Alert Over}

[fj1200]

FJ, Um Urr
I don't know what to say. We were having a fair back and forth but ..
Um OK.

{Sarcasm Alert}
Sure , I'll just pretend to drink the kool-aid for a minute here.

There no problems, real or imagined with oligopolies FJ, ever.
Big companies are goood for everybody all the time and never do wrong.
Those aren't the oil company oligopoly/cartel issues I was looking for.
{Sarcasm Alert Over}

But what? I'm all about the fair back and forth that we had going but it seemed like we were rehashing the same information. I'm all for free markets with minimal government intervention especially a distinct lack of cronyism, I think the power that you are granting them is not as significant as you think it is, the power that they do have is what is given them by government, and oligopolies may be a natural progression of a mature industry and are not necessarily anti-competitive. That's my nutshell and I'd be happy to discuss more.



And I'm not sure why the sarcasm because those aren't really points I was making.

[logroller]

ok,
If I'm a Top shareholder in the one of the big oil companies, the "best" is where i make the most money and have the most control over the markets.
But what I mean by the best is what the folks that promote True free markets say creates the best of everyone in a universal sense. For owners workers and consumers.

they say
the free market is suppose to give the Widest range for entepenpuers. that's not what we have with big oil or energy in general. and the Oil companies love to have it so.

they say
Workers wages of the well manage companies will rise because the competition for quality people among rival corps will bring high wages and more benys for workers until a natural break point.
Not what we'd expect see the fewer a companies. except in very specialized area.

The rewards for innovation also become less with a smaller group of providers that have more incentive too collude for the maximum benifit of the small groups higher ups than for the customers or the employees.

These vast industries with a few players can and have artificially caped wages and artificially raised prices from time to time. (over the past few centuries really.)

Can and have produced inferior products that take a while to correct if at all, being practically sole sources.
Also we have the thing about "to big to fail" which I dont buy into but we see that the big Companies or Oligopolies themselves DO and have the power and influence to push gov'ts to support their HUGE failing biz operations. Effectively, stealing money from people who have already refused to purchase thier products even though , they, as you and FJ imply, can be more efficient and be a good natural outcome at a nat'l intn'l level.

finally some Free market promoters even say that because of a large multitude of free competition in the a free market you won't have large or unexpected shortages.

But with the oligopolies they can create the shortages themselves if they like. there's no true market force to stop them. We don't want to regulate someones biz. If they own the oil they can do with it what they want right?

that's what I'm talking about when i say the best. the Generally promoted True Free market virtues.




Here's part of my point, what leverage do we have that matches the speed, focus, organization, moneyed clout and access to Washington's Representatives and the people in the regulatory agencies. The Oil companies have troops of people that wake up every morning with their only Job being to influence Washington in their direction. And they even pay people to influence and create fake (infiltrate?) enviro groups so even their efforts are bent in the cause of big oil in Washington. (BTW Peak oil is as big a scam as Global warming.)

I hope you see that my complaint about "BIG OIL" is more than emotional or knee jerk. It definitely ends with some Pretty Strong emotions, frustration mostly, but it doesn't start there for me. I'll assume your defense for them isn't emotion based either gentleman. And not just a Knee jerk defense of the status quo "that's Business". or that's the way things are.

you both focused on the "best" part of my previous comments but skipped what I think is vital to keep in mind. the "absolute control" part. you both mention the UPsides to oligopoly, sure Id' agree any large system if run by virtuous and wise people can bring Outstanding benefits all around. But as the founders warned the concentration of power into a few hands tends to corrupt. That's principal needs to respected when it comes to looking a "BIG OIL" and All of theses Large focused industries IMO gentlemen.

I understand your dilemma, but understand mine, what pray tell is the alternative? A return to coal and the 19th century modes of transport? You are free to hold dear any opinions as to the reality of our situation regarding depletion of resources, but when such opinions are based on belief and not fact, we will struggle to reach any reasonable consensus, which will only further the power dynamic between military-industrial collusion. You see, I'm not saying its best, only better than the known alternatives. Of course, I'm open to suggestions...have any?

[logroller]

I understand your dilemma, but understand mine, what pray tell is the alternative? A return to coal and the 19th century modes of transport? You are free to hold dear any opinions as to the reality of our situation regarding depletion of resources, but when such opinions are based on belief and not fact, we will struggle to reach any reasonable consensus, which will only further the power dynamic between military-industrial collusion. You see, I'm not saying its best, only better than the known alternatives. Of course, I'm open to suggestions...have any?

sheesh, sometimes I can sound like a dick.

In all sincerity to FJ and rev, we're friends here, and our differences of opinion are true to the intent of those great men who founding this country. I too am dismayed with the performance of our government, and I think anybody who frequents this forum shares a sense of frustration. There comes a time when even what's best doesn't seem right. At these times we must shift our focus from the immediate perils which present themselves and look instead upon those successes we still enjoy. Being ever vigilent not to unravel the fabric of freedom in an attempt to curtail the perceived threats to the institutions of our comfort. Understanding that hardships are a natural balance, that in the end we will leave many things undone and the legacy We must strive for is not curative, but rather having left future generations the opportunity to carry on those endeavors left undone.
Now rev, I must take issue with your statement on Peak Oil being farsical. Recognizing scientific predictions have been wrong in the past, one may tend to dismiss them; thus relegating all future predictions to the conspiracy file. I am reminded of the little boy who cried wolf, whose mischievious false reports also led to dismissal of future warnings; but let us not forget that the wolf did indeed return.

Will oil runout? No. Can drilling extend our current consumption habits? Yes. Tar sands, abiotic oil, alternative fuels...all of which can, do and will provide the energy resources we require, but at what cost/ Understand peak oil theory is, at its core, nothing more than a mathematical model, not an abc guide to behavior. That is something we must decide upon after careful consideration. However Hubbert's production curve was introduced in the 50's along with his predictions of a US peak in the 70's( which were verified). He further predicted that the global peak would be in 1995, adding 10 years if production were curtailed by OPEC. Now its too soon to say if the peak is certain, but indications are strong, especially considering his prediction that war and strife in oil-rich areas would be associated with peak oil. Now Rev I ask you, do any of these predictions still sound farsical? We have the choice of two alternatives; an international conspiracy fifty years in making, or people living for the moment and ignoring the future. The latter seems more plausible.

[revelarts]

But what? I'm all about the fair back and forth that we had going but it seemed like we were rehashing the same information.

I'm all for free markets
( I think free markets are great until we get oligopoly or monopoly)
with minimal government intervention
( I Agree )
especially a distinct lack of cronyism,
( I Agree ABSOLUTELY )
I think the power that you are granting them is not as significant as you think it is,
( All due respect I think you fail to acknowledge or are not aware of what they already have done with that power)
the power that they do have is what is given them by government,
( Former Oil Company employees in gov't , donations, kickbacks, writing laws, getting special waivers for biz, even military assistance in foreign countries etc.. yes? )
and oligopolies may be a natural progression of a mature industry
( But not what is hoped for by many free market promoters. ANd not Necessarily a senrio for that one thinks of that will create the most options or FREEdom of trade for employees or customers )
and are not necessarily anti-competitive.
(Sure it is. Even when the larger biz are not doing anything corrupt. And without gov't regs backing the up large companies. It's not completely competition prohibitive but pretty closed )
That's my nutshell and I'd be happy to discuss more.


We look at it a bit different FJ no problem my friend




...
In all sincerity to FJ and rev, we're friends here, and our differences of opinion are true to the intent of those great men who founding this country. I too am dismayed with the performance of our government, and I think anybody who frequents this forum shares a sense of frustration. There comes a time when even what's best doesn't seem right. At these times we must shift our focus from the immediate perils which present themselves and look instead upon those successes we still enjoy. Being ever vigilent not to unravel the fabric of freedom in an attempt to curtail the perceived threats to the institutions of our comfort. Understanding that hardships are a natural balance, that in the end we will leave many things undone and the legacy We must strive for is not curative, but rather having left future generations the opportunity to carry on those endeavors left undone.
Now rev, I must take issue with your statement on Peak Oil being farsical. Recognizing scientific predictions have been wrong in the past, one may tend to dismiss them; thus relegating all future predictions to the conspiracy file. I am reminded of the little boy who cried wolf, whose mischievious false reports also led to dismissal of future warnings; but let us not forget that the wolf did indeed return.

Will oil runout? No. Can drilling extend our current consumption habits? Yes. Tar sands, abiotic oil, alternative fuels...all of which can, do and will provide the energy resources we require, but at what cost/ Understand peak oil theory is, at its core, nothing more than a mathematical model, not an abc guide to behavior. That is something we must decide upon after careful consideration. However Hubbert's production curve was introduced in the 50's along with his predictions of a US peak in the 70's( which were verified). He further predicted that the global peak would be in 1995, adding 10 years if production were curtailed by OPEC. Now its too soon to say if the peak is certain, but indications are strong, especially considering his prediction that war and strife in oil-rich areas would be associated with peak oil. Now Rev I ask you, do any of these predictions still sound farsical? We have the choice of two alternatives; an international conspiracy fifty years in making, or people living for the moment and ignoring the future. The latter seems more plausible.

I don't know of any conspiracies log but are 10- 20- 30 years biz plans unheard of. Neither of us have access to Oil company files. SO that aside some of the reports that promote Peak oil I've seen are suspect in source and data.

Also there are other reports that speak of more oil available domestically than that we've generally been lead to believe.

We're agreed that there's no perfect markets or gov'ts (or debaters :cool:) I think i may cross the line at times in my complaints of the gov't and big biz but they are not very forth coming in their mistakes so we probably need to compensate for their reticence, huh?

[logroller]

I don't know of any conspiracies log but are 10- 20- 30 years biz plans unheard of. Neither of us have access to Oil company files. SO that aside some of the reports that promote Peak oil I've seen are suspect in source and data.

You said scam, not I. I believe a scam involving great numbers of contributing parties would be a conspiracy. Hubbert's research for Shell oil was purposefully necessary for making those plans, and it was broadly disregarded.


Also there are other reports that speak of more oil available domestically than that we've generally been lead to believe.

Who disputes that there isn't more oil than has been found? I know there is more oil, its just harder to get. But-- How much? What is the net energy gain? Deepwater drilling ain't easy, its expensive and prone to problems. (as we've seen) I mean the Earth isn't like a candy with a creamy oil center. The fact is that we have significantly reduced the "cheap" oil-- that's why the price goes up!


We're agreed that there's no perfect markets or gov'ts (or debaters :cool:) I think i may cross the line at times in my complaints of the gov't and big biz but they are not very forth coming in their mistakes so we probably need to compensate for their reticence, huh?

Well there's no perfect information, thus no perfect decisions, hence no perfect markets-- but what is the alternative? Besides, our responsibilities extend beyond today's market. Just because we want low gas prices doesn't mean oil companies should pump everything they can to keep prices low. They do know how much they have and how long they can pump; that's why they want to explore for more, because its just not enough. But neither will what we explore for-- not for long anyways, say a generation or two. Russia is the number one producer of oil, and we're the number one consumer of oil; and we use over twice what Russia produces. That's the problem, not OPEC or oil companies or govt, its us--we use too much oil. We can explore all we want, but it wont satisfy our current demand indefinitely; energy consumption must be reduced in this country-- the sooner we do so, the easier it will be. I'm not talking about CFLs and solar panels; they help sure, but what needs to happen is structural change to society. Things like community based production, where you work and buy within a mile or two of your residence. Suburban life is abhorrent; people work and shop for things far too far away to be economical. This one example could make our society far more energy independant. and this idea has been around since, well forever, but in the US there was a commune style movement that tried implement this in the 60's but it failed. Why???? Cheap oil maybe:cool:

[fj1200]

Suburban life is abhorrent; people work and shop for things far too far away to be economical.

Damn that Eisenhower and his interstate highway system. That's probably the biggest driver of our suburban lifestyle than anything else. I wonder if the oil companies were behind that one? :poke:

[fj1200]

We look at it a bit different FJ no problem my friend

In the interest of not rehashing everything, I'll just say "yup." ;)

[revelarts]

From the film "the formula"

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQ03IbEa1Bw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQ03IbEa1Bw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>



Hmmm

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aV-PqNMxDiQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aV-PqNMxDiQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


Very interesting.
60 year old formula used by the NAZI's Using Coal converting to liquid fuel. No tech advances there I'm sure. No way that's any cheaper or easier to do today -COUGH-


1929 November 9 I.G. Farben and Standard Oil (now EXXON) sign a cartel agreement that has two objectives: (1) The cartel agreement granted Standard Oil one-half of all rights to the hydrogenation process (producing gasoline from coal, developed by Farben) in all countries except Germany. (2) Standard and Farben agreed "never to compete with each other in the fields of chemistry and petroleum products. In the future, if Standard Oil wished to enter the broad field of industrial chemicals or drugs, it would do so only as a partner of Farben. Farben in turn, agreed never to enter the field of petroleum except as a joint venture with Standard." (Griffin)
http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/1929tbse.htm

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/11/standard-oil-and-ig-farben-patents-and.html


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BwUtkNawOJY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BwUtkNawOJY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Will this small upstart and other like them be able to compete , I hope so.

[gabosaurus]

The continued dictated rises in gas prices by Big Oil is very intriguing, since U.S. oil reserves are near the largest numbers ever, and the Arab Oil Cartel have declared the world fuel level as "over saturated."
Which means a certain segment of the population is getting very wealthy and the rest of us are paying for it.

[fj1200]

The continued dictated rises in gas prices by Big Oil is very intriguing...

You should catch up on this thread before making unfounded statements.

[logroller]

From the film "the formula"

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQ03IbEa1Bw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NQ03IbEa1Bw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>



Hmmm

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aV-PqNMxDiQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aV-PqNMxDiQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


Very interesting.
60 year old formula used by the NAZI's Using Coal converting to liquid fuel. No tech advances there I'm sure. No way that's any cheaper or easier to do today -COUGH-


Will this small upstart and other like them be able to compete , I hope so.

Coal to gas, its done today, but lets not forget Rommel's movements into north africa weren't in pursuit of coal. Look there are very simple principles of energy. Energy moves towards a less order, and reversing this trend requires an energy input. Sure coal can be made into oil. But this process wont be more efficient than just using oil. As oil becomes less efficient to extract, or just unavailable, as it was in Germany, technology will convert inferior substitutes into more usable ones, but understand that energy expended in the process is no longer useful to us, and is therefor a loss, both thermodynamically and economically-- technology doesn't change that!

So far as upstarts. If its worth its weight it'll compete...for an IPO or venture capital. He says their technology can convert x amt of coal into 1.5 billion barrels of oil. To put this in perspective, that would satisfy the US consumption for 75 days at 20million bbl/day. The solutions we need involve decades of provisions, not days. A former Saudi official made a statement which was quoted to congress in a peak oil meeting, he said what we need to find to satisfy global oil consumption habits is on the scale of 10 Saudi Arabias!!! Now I don't know what numbers were used to justify such a statement, so I take it with a grain of salt. But it is a profound statement to make, enough to make me wonder if he's right-- the likelihood of such a find seems preposterous and thus our consumption is far out of proportion to what is reasonable, let alone sustainable.

[gabosaurus]

You should catch up on this thread before making unfounded statements.

I have caught up on this thread. It is full of unfounded statements.

[fj1200]

I have caught up on this thread. It is full of unfounded statements.

It would appear you've only read Joe's then.

[logroller]

edit: double post deleted

[revelarts]

Coal to gas, its done today, but lets not forget Rommel's movements into north africa weren't in pursuit of coal. Look there are very simple principles of energy. Energy moves towards a less order, and reversing this trend requires an energy input. Sure coal can be made into oil. But this process wont be more efficient than just using oil. As oil becomes less efficient to extract, or just unavailable, as it was in Germany, technology will convert inferior substitutes into more usable ones, but understand that energy expended in the process is no longer useful to us, and is therefor a loss, both thermodynamically and economically-- technology doesn't change that!

So far as upstarts. If its worth its weight it'll compete...for an IPO or venture capital. He says their technology can convert x amt of coal into 1.5 billion barrels of oil. To put this in perspective, that would satisfy the US consumption for 75 days at 20million bbl/day. The solutions we need involve decades of provisions, not days. A former Saudi official made a statement which was quoted to congress in a peak oil meeting, he said what we need to find to satisfy global oil consumption habits is on the scale of 10 Saudi Arabias!!! Now I don't know what numbers were used to justify such a statement, so I take it with a grain of salt. But it is a profound statement to make, enough to make me wonder if he's right-- the likelihood of such a find seems preposterous and thus our consumption is far out of proportion to what is reasonable, let alone sustainable.

Log, I get what saying about peak oil now I think.
Your saying that's it's going to be more expensive to get not that it's becoming unavailable, 1st of all it seems.
Next that we are using more than what's cost effectively available.

That's what I'm getting here.

To the 1st part , speaking from present knowledge I'd say you may be right.

MAYBE

But the projections are just that, projections, they may be correct or not. new discoveries of "easy" Oil or new methods or cost effectiveness or OPENING FIELDS could change anyone's "peak" forecast. Whether they be made up or actual.

I'm not prepared to defend my own position fully, that the Oil companies are sitting on more oil than they let on, more than enough for the next 150 yrs , but I do believe it's the case.
I don't think I could prove it to anyone's satisfaction here but that's my take.

But sure with the generally accepted facts available some could conclude that cheap oil is a thing of the past, as long as there are no changes in anything.
however it can't be an excuse for the sudden rise in Oil today. These past few moths. No feilds have gone dry, no supplies are gone, no sudden uptick in usage world wide, there's no valid excuse for the sudden jump in gas prices. I say it's mainly raw profits with middle east unrest as a cover.

[fj1200]

A couple of points.


Your saying that's it's going to be more expensive to get not that it's becoming unavailable, 1st of all it seems.

What is expensive or cost effective changes with advances in technology.


however it can't be an excuse for the sudden rise in Oil today. These past few moths. No feilds have gone dry, no supplies are gone, no sudden uptick in usage world wide, there's no valid excuse for the sudden jump in gas prices. I say it's mainly raw profits with middle east unrest as a cover.

Have you read nothing I posted? There is ALWAYS unrest in the Middle East and there is ALWAYS a profit motive. Now is nothing so special except that oil happens to be running up in price at the same time and allows convenient excuses or a search for a scapegoat. Don't follow the populist herd, they are always wrong. Correlation is NOT causation.

[logroller]

Log, I get what saying about peak oil now I think.
Your saying that's it's going to be more expensive to get not that it's becoming unavailable, 1st of all it seems.
Next that we are using more than what's cost effectively available.

That's what I'm getting here.

To the 1st part , speaking from present knowledge I'd say you may be right.

MAYBE

But the projections are just that, projections, they may be correct or not. new discoveries of "easy" Oil or new methods or cost effectiveness or OPENING FIELDS could change anyone's "peak" forecast. Whether they be made up or actual.

I'm not prepared to defend my own position fully, that the Oil companies are sitting on more oil than they let on, more than enough for the next 150 yrs , but I do believe it's the case.
I don't think I could prove it to anyone's satisfaction here but that's my take.

But sure with the generally accepted facts available some could conclude that cheap oil is a thing of the past, as long as there are no changes in anything.
however it can't be an excuse for the sudden rise in Oil today. These past few moths. No feilds have gone dry, no supplies are gone, no sudden uptick in usage world wide, there's no valid excuse for the sudden jump in gas prices. I say it's mainly raw profits with middle east unrest as a cover.

I'd like to hope you're correct, but what you construe as present knowledge has for the most part been present since the 50's. The oil finds since have been well within what was projected.
And understand when you use the term expensive, don't limit it as a economic price function. The true expense is that of opportunity cost, the forgone alternatives. Sure we can keep producing oil through a multitude of means to satisfy our demands, but it will require giving up the alternative uses, both now and in the future. When oil was cheap, less was forgone; as oil becomes more expensive, more will be forgone-- the determination of the tipping point is what varies, not by forecasts or new discovery of oil fields and technology, but by each individual with careful consideration of the information, which includes but should not be limited to the price of oil. The market has no consideration of ethics, only in so far as the players are concerned. The real conspiracy is the downplay of information due to the massive growth through cheap oil, at its heart the blissful ignorance of the public, to which the majority simply don't want to forgo the immediate comforts despite long-term opportunities forgone. Those opportunities may not be mine or your's, but those of children and grandchildren--- what opportunities will they have before them and though it is our right to use our resources as we desire, what responsibilities unto the future generation's have we forgone? That, my friend, is the moral dilemma; not price fixing or market composition.

<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/19340602?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="400" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/19340602">Health Facilities and the Energy Crisis: A Conversation with M. King Hubbert.</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user3409499">Melia&#039;s Papa</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[logroller]

A couple of points.



What is expensive or cost effective changes with advances in technology.



Have you read nothing I posted? There is ALWAYS unrest in the Middle East and there is ALWAYS a profit motive. Now is nothing so special except that oil happens to be running up in price at the same time and allows convenient excuses or a search for a scapegoat. Don't follow the populist herd, they are always wrong. Correlation is NOT causation.

Expensive is a relative term. Water when you're dehydrated is worth more, technology doesn't change that. Resource use varies relative to the desires of those who benefit, whose benefits vary relative to resource scarcity-- so it's a circle. So too is the ME unrest, I think we wish to see the unrest as causal to price increases, when in reality this too is a response to relative scarcity. History is very clear on this, all strife results from resource scarcity: oil, arable land, water; the list is long, but identical in principle. What makes fossil fuels, oil et al, so valuable is their density of energy which allows us to make undrinkable water drinkable, non-arable land arable, even coal into oil; previously insurmountable tasks do-able! As these resources become more scarce, we belabor ourselves for a scapegoat-- I suppose we do as Adam did-- its God's fault.

[fj1200]

Expensive is a relative term. Water when you're dehydrated is worth more, technology doesn't change that. Resource use varies relative to the desires of those who benefit, whose benefits vary relative to resource scarcity-- so it's a circle. So too is the ME unrest, I think we wish to see the unrest as causal to price increases, when in reality this too is a response to relative scarcity. History is very clear on this, all strife results from resource scarcity: oil, arable land, water; the list is long, but identical in principle. What makes fossil fuels, oil et al, so valuable is their density of energy which allows us to make undrinkable water drinkable, non-arable land arable, even coal into oil; previously insurmountable tasks do-able! As these resources become more scarce, we belabor ourselves for a scapegoat-- I suppose we do as Adam did-- its God's fault.

"All strife results from resource scarcity"? I beg to differ. I don't think the strife in the ME results from scarcity unless you tie in freedom scarcity. Some have tried to tie in food prices to the Egyptian strife but you'd have to extend that to the other countries that have had the same uprisings.

Nevertheless, even though we may look for a scapegoat does not make the goat guilty.

[logroller]

"All strife results from resource scarcity"? I beg to differ. I don't think the strife in the ME results from scarcity unless you tie in freedom scarcity. Some have tried to tie in food prices to the Egyptian strife but you'd have to extend that to the other countries that have had the same uprisings.

Nevertheless, even though we may look for a scapegoat does not make the goat guilty.

Freedom huh? Freedom to what, merely vote, or control your own resources? I'm all for freedom punch, Grape koolaid's my favorite, but when you boil off the water, a scarce resource, it sorta loses it appeal!

[fj1200]

Freedom huh? Freedom to what, merely vote, or control your own resources? I'm all for freedom punch, Grape koolaid's my favorite, but when you boil off the water, a scarce resource, it sorta loses it appeal!

Means different things to different people. Personally I think that economic freedom is more important than the freedom to vote in undeveloped countries.

BTW, lemonade is the best, 3 lemons fresh squeezed with 1 1/4 cup sugar; makes 2 quarts. Grape is for kids. :laugh: And yes, water is a scarce resource, to some, but it lacks energy density. ;)

[revelarts]

If the question is what are the causes of strife, I think you've hit on 2 so far.

Scarcity is one sure. but it's not an exclusive root.
Any resident atheist will tell you that "religion" is a another cause of strife. I'd agree but only to a point, because religion is not a broad enough term for the problem they are pointing out. It's Ideas. My idea of reality is better than your idea and it's worth killing to defend or promote. That thinking may be religious or it may be atheistic and have little to nothing to do with resources.

I agree with FJ that freedom is another, the founders talk about it a lot. how men aren't really built to be slaves. How many will fight and claws out of slavery even if the cages wide and made of gold.

you mentioned Adam. what scarcity did Adam and Eve have in Paradise that put them in strife with God. They thought they had a scarcity but it wasn't a physical one they thought it was a scarcity of knowledge. But it was a false perception.

What happens in the rowdy bar when a guy accidentally steps on another guys foot. The Stepee decides he's got a scarcity of knocking people out? A scarcity of shoe leather on his boots?
No, it's just misplaced pride. A scarcity of brains, decency and manners maybe.

So, Pride and stupidity are also causes of strife.

Greed, not real scarcity can also cause it. Some people have more than enough but will still beat the crap out of some others to get more.

I guess more simply put
the 7 deadly sins all can causes of major strife quite well all by there lonesomes in the midst of plenty.
Lust ,Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride

[logroller]

If the question is what are the causes of strife, I think you've hit on 2 so far.

Scarcity is one sure. but it's not an exclusive root.
Any resident atheist will tell you that "religion" is a another cause of strife. I'd agree but only to a point, because religion is not a broad enough term for the problem they are pointing out. It's Ideas. My idea of reality is better than your idea and it's worth killing to defend or promote. That thinking may be religious or it may be atheistic and have little to nothing to do with resources.

I agree with FJ that freedom is another, the founders talk about it a lot. how men aren't really built to be slaves. How many will fight and claws out of slavery even if the cages wide and made of gold.

you mentioned Adam. what scarcity did Adam and Eve have in Paradise that put them in strife with God. They thought they had a scarcity but it wasn't a physical one they thought it was a scarcity of knowledge. But it was a false perception.

What happens in the rowdy bar when a guy accidentally steps on another guys foot. The Stepee decides he's got a scarcity of knocking people out? A scarcity of shoe leather on his boots?
No, it's just misplaced pride. A scarcity of brains, decency and manners maybe.

So, Pride and stupidity are also causes of strife.

Greed, not real scarcity can also cause it. Some people have more than enough but will still beat the crap out of some others to get more.

I guess more simply put
the 7 deadly sins all can causes of major strife quite well all by there lonesomes in the midst of plenty.
Lust ,Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride

Perhaps I stand corrected. Religion certainly can produce strife. I differentiate between strife and conflict. Fundamental differences between two people can result in strife. A barroom disagreement, IMO, not strife-- just conflict. Religion actually poses a unique situation, specifically how knowledge is fundamentally limitless, thus not subject to scarcity. But I would argue the conveyance of knowledge is limited, to which religion serves as a mode of exchange, thus subject to the bounds of scarcity. I'm reminded of white-man's burden-- spreading the word of God's gift of salvation to the heathens... but morals aside they nonetheless reaped their resources.

You say there are those who still beat the crap out of others when they have more than enough. We have enough oil and energy, but we still demand more!

[logroller]

Means different things to different people. Personally I think that economic freedom is more important than the freedom to vote in undeveloped countries.

BTW, lemonade is the best, 3 lemons fresh squeezed with 1 1/4 cup sugar; makes 2 quarts. Grape is for kids. :laugh: And yes, water is a scarce resource, to some, but it lacks energy density. ;)

Must be some big lemons to make two quarts. Actually water is an excellent energy carrier due to its high specific heat capacity (second only to ammonia), serving to regulate the temp on Earth and making life possible.
BTW I totally got your Cal joke, I hadn't read that thread beef when you posted earlier.
Grape's for kids:laugh:, googled grape ape for a joke image, found this--that's not for kids!
http://kushits.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/grape-ape-community.jpg

[fj1200]

Must be some big lemons to make two quarts. Actually water is an excellent energy carrier due to its high specific heat capacity (second only to ammonia), serving to regulate the temp on Earth and making life possible.

Yes, three big lemons from the farmers market, sometimes spike it with a tablespoon of ReaLemon. Shhh.

I don't think that makes water an energy carrier, we don't ship water around the world as a means of transporting energy.


BTW I totally got your Cal joke, I hadn't read that thread beef when you posted earlier.

Too subtle for some?


Grape's for kids:laugh:, googled grape ape for a joke image, found this--that's not for kids!
http://kushits.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/grape-ape-community.jpg

You googled it? Uh huh. I know it was the picture from your California dope smoking medical ;) marijuana catalog you hippy. :laugh:

Don't forget to save me some for my next CA trip. :420:

[logroller]

Yes, three big lemons from the farmers market, sometimes spike it with a tablespoon of ReaLemon. Shhh.

I don't think that makes water an energy carrier, we don't ship water around the world as a means of transporting energy.



Too subtle for some?



You googled it? Uh huh. I know it was the picture from your California dope smoking medical ;) marijuana catalog you hippy. :laugh:

Don't forget to save me some for my next CA trip. :420:

That's not mine man. I don't know how that got in there. Hey, these aren't my pants.:laugh:

[gabosaurus]

If oil is so scarce, why is there so much of it? Big Oil and Wall Street love to conspire to enrich their pockets.

And if California is so bad, why do so many people want to live here? Go keep your snow, your late spring, tornadoes and otherwise sucky conditions. We will keep our sunshine, thank you. :)

[fj1200]

If oil is so scarce, why is there so much of it? Big Oil and Wall Street love to conspire to enrich their pockets.

Still not going to defend your position?

[jimnyc]

If oil is so scarce, why is there so much of it? Big Oil and Wall Street love to conspire to enrich their pockets.

And if California is so bad, why do so many people want to live here? Go keep your snow, your late spring, tornadoes and otherwise sucky conditions. We will keep our sunshine, thank you. :)

There's a HUGE difference between people desiring fine weather, beaches and land - and living amongst a population of so many fucking idiots.

[logroller]

Here's a great correlation.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/500-us-oil-production1.jpg

"Music has always been a matter of Energy to me, a question of Fuel. Sentimental people call it Inspiration, but what they really mean is Fuel. I have always needed Fuel. I am a serious consumer. On some nights I still believe that a car with the gas needle on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio."
— Hunter S. Thompson

[red states rule]

Another Republican failure. The price increase is related exclusively to speculation in the futures market (in large measure by the Koch brothers.) If Republicans weren't obstructing regulation, this wouldn't be happening.

That is not what Dems were saying a few years ago

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tbzzeuYJteY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

If oil is so scarce, why is there so much of it? Big Oil and Wall Street love to conspire to enrich their pockets.

And if California is so bad, why do so many people want to live here? Go keep your snow, your late spring, tornadoes and otherwise sucky conditions. We will keep our sunshine, thank you. :)

But CA has Pelosi Gabby

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aRIJLZAQdLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[fj1200]

Here's a great correlation.

That correlation is at least as reliable as anything Joe or gab can bring up.

If they wanted to get serious they could bring out some policies that would actually bring about some change in our use of gas/cars/etc. Reduce regulations that will give startup automakers a chance against the entrenched, reduce spending on highway construction that subsidizes long commutes, increase gas taxes that will encourage more efficient cars...

You know, if they actually wanted to get serious about changing how we use autos and gas and all.

[red states rule]

Consider this when the usual liberal talkikng points about "Big Oil" profits start to tossed out




Oil Companies, Profits, and the Courts

Some Americans are skeptical on this point, I know. So I direct them to last year’s Supreme Court decision. The court ruled unanimously that oil companies have not been colluding to set prices.

Oil prices are high today because the economies of huge nations like China and India are developing rapidly. More oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply.

Hurricane Katrina destroyed a lot of oil processing capacity around the Gulf of Mexico too, so there has been less oil being processed. When less oil is supplied, gasoline prices rise.

What does the average oil company make today on the sale of a gallon of gas? Ten cents.

The federal tax on gasoline, on the other hand, is nearly twice that. Then there’s state gasoline taxes. (If you live in New York, for example, you’re paying 68 cents a gallon in taxes.)

If Exxon is gouging us at ten cents a gallon, what exactly is the federal government doing to us at 18.4 cents a gallon?

Who Is Gouging Whom?

After all, Exxon has to compete with other oil companies both here and abroad. It has to spend billions on exploration, billions more on development, and further billions on refining and transportation.

As a result, it’s hardly making money hand over fist. Earnings at Exxon rose 9% last year but fell 4% in the fourth quarter, underscoring the challenges of rising costs and lower commodity prices.

And Exxon’s profit margins are only 10.7%. Profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26%. Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies.

Because that’s what Big Oil’s opponents really want: a bigger federal gasoline tax. Why? To fund the search for alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol and nanotechnology.

That’s a fine sentiment. But will throwing around tens of billions of dollars in federal research grants really create alternative energy sources? If that were the case, shouldn’t

Uncle Sam give grants to:

•Dell… to create more powerful computers?

•Boeing… to build faster aircraft?

•McDonalds… to make low-fat French fries that taste good?
The federal government doesn’t need to do this, of course. These oil companies will continue to make higher quality products at better prices on their own. Why? Because they exist to maximize profits. (Profits, incidentally, that provide much of the tax base for the U.S. government.)

http://www.investmentu.com/2007/March/20070323.html

[fj1200]

Consider this when the usual liberal talkikng points about "Big Oil" profits start to tossed out

How DARE you bring up points that are contrary to the oligopolistic oil company shenanigans and the speculator collusion machine. Break out the ban stick for you.






:laugh:

[red states rule]

How DARE you bring up points that are contrary to the oligopolistic oil company shenanigans and the speculator collusion machine. Break out the ban stick for you.






:laugh:

I feel I will soon tap into that liberal tolerance Gabby and Joe are known for very soon

[red states rule]

If oil is so scarce, why is there so much of it? Big Oil and Wall Street love to conspire to enrich their pockets.

And if California is so bad, why do so many people want to live here? Go keep your snow, your late spring, tornadoes and otherwise sucky conditions. We will keep our sunshine, thank you. :)

Gabby, what have Dems proposed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, beside high gas prices is OUR fault

This tells you alot. Remember Dems ran the Hosue, the Snate, and the WH when this interview took place

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SJNUbuIsW-c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

Forget the graphs. All they'll show is price increases. You've got to explain the price increases. What causes them?

To Obama, liberasl, and the liberal media THIS is the most important graph

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/april_2011/obama_approval_index_april_25_2011/474517-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_april_25_2011.jpg

[logroller]

That correlation is at least as reliable as anything Joe or gab can bring up.

If they wanted to get serious they could bring out some policies that would actually bring about some change in our use of gas/cars/etc. Reduce regulations that will give startup automakers a chance against the entrenched, reduce spending on highway construction that subsidizes long commutes, increase gas taxes that will encourage more efficient cars...

You know, if they actually wanted to get serious about changing how we use autos and gas and all.


but its so much easier to expect other people to make the changes for us. I want cheap gas and good music, I'll let washington work out the details:laugh:

[red states rule]

but its so much easier to expect other people to make the changes for us. I want cheap gas and good music, I'll let washington work out the details:laugh:

Instead of waiting why not move to Europe? They have had many of the same policies of Obama and we know how well they are doing

$40 to fill up a Toyota Echo is the direct result of Obama's hope and chance policies

[red states rule]

The latest Obama reelection ad. Tells you all you need to know about an Obama 2nd term

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cbs-gaspump-easter.jpg

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0jYx8nwjFQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Z0jYx8nwjFQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[red states rule]

If Dems are so determined to get rid of "corporate welfare" take a look at how much money goes to "big oil" VS "green energy"

Will Dems scrap this money to the "greenies"

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/energy-subsidies.jpg

and

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4661003&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

[logroller]

If Dems are so determined to get rid of "corporate welfare" take a look at how much money goes to "big oil" VS "green energy"

Will Dems scrap this money to the "greenies"

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/energy-subsidies.jpg

and

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4661003&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

data source??? here's an intl perspective.


Here's a summary of the global figures:


•Fossil energy:
◦Total subsidies (2009) = $312 billion;

◦Share of global energy consumption provided (2009) = 83 percent;

◦Subsidy per percentage of global energy consumption provided: $3.8 billion


•Renewable energy:
◦Total subsidies (2009) = $57 billion;

◦Share of global energy consumption provided (2009) = 7 percent;

◦Subsidy per percentage of global energy consumption provided: $8.1 billion (Note: excludes conventional hydropower and biomass)


•Compared on a per unit of energy provided basis, renewables therefore receive 2.1x more government subsidies than fossil fuels.
Data source: International Energy Agencysource:http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/friday_factoids_why_phasing_ou.shtml

This isn't really a partisan issue, unless you think dems alone favor renewable energy. There's always more to a statistic than meets the eye. Solar and wind only produce some of the time, but receive the subsidies for all the time. But really that's aside from the point. What is necessary is the determination of need through cost/benefit analysis. A subsidized transition to renewables represents an increase in short-term social costs in the interest of expediting long-term benefits; whereas fossil fuel subsidies benefit society in the short term, while long-term benefits are fleeting. I'm all for free-markets, but given the reality of energy policy, subsidies aren't going away-- at least they can go in a better direction. I don't think I speak of a liberal persuasion to say renewables are better direction.

[red states rule]

data source??? here's an intl perspective.

source:http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/friday_factoids_why_phasing_ou.shtml

This isn't really a partisan issue, unless you think dems alone favor renewable energy. There's always more to a statistic than meets the eye. Solar and wind only produce some of the time, but receive the subsidies for all the time. But really that's aside from the point. What is necessary is the determination of need through cost/benefit analysis. A subsidized transition to renewables represents an increase in short-term social costs in the interest of expediting long-term benefits; whereas fossil fuel subsidies benefit society in the short term, while long-term benefits are fleeting. I'm all for free-markets, but given the reality of energy policy, subsidies aren't going away-- at least they can go in a better direction. I don't think I speak of a liberal persuasion to say renewables are better direction.

All I am saying is libs are bellowing about ending corporate welfare and I want to know if they will also end green corporate welfare

Seems to me the people who are for green energy are telling us someday and somehow we will see alternate sources of energy. They are not sure is it will be cheaper or available in greater quanties of our current sources of energy - but it might happen one day in the future

[logroller]

All I am saying is libs are bellowing about ending corporate welfare and I want to know if they will also end green corporate welfare

Seems to me the people who are for green energy are telling us someday and somehow we will see alternate sources of energy. They are not sure is it will be cheaper or available in greater quanties of our current sources of energy - but it might happen one day in the future

Ending corporate welfare huh. Its easy to fall into the false logic of those you villify as libs or whatever. When the reality is large businesses are typically the most efficient means of providing highly technical services on any sort of broad scale. All I would say to them is try sourcing a mom and pop solar panel manufacturer. Now renewables and the proposition that they will replace fossil fuels is simply unrealistic to say the least. Take food as an analogy. To argue that legumes and grains are the most efficent means of caloric production would be relatively accurate, but that doesn't mean they'll replace beef and poultry; or vice versa, meat tastes better, but you can't eat meat all the time(scurvy and all). It's finding a balance based upon the lesser opportunity cost. It might seem irrational to install a solar farm floating in the sumps of a coal pit mine when coal is readily available to produce the energy needed for the operation. But consider the alternative use for the coal not used could instead coke a foundry instead, where iron ore is plentiful but energy is not. That's the basics of economic alternatives.

The fact of the matter is our energy demand is high and energy prices are rising. Rather or not subsidies will solve that issue will depend upon how we, as consumers and citizens, respond. If we respond to higher gas prices by merely increasing conventional production, then alternative energy subsidies will probably fail to help our society. If we instead embrace energy conservation and alternative energy sources a little sooner, being encouraged by an incentive and thereby reducing our dependance on fossil fuels(esp. foreign) sooner, than I would say alternative energy subsidies will have succeeded. We've subsidized traditional energy sources because it has benefitted our society and I think its a reasonable assumption that alternative energy investment will do the same --Wouldn't you agree?:thumb:

[red states rule]

Ending corporate welfare huh. Its easy to fall into the false logic of those you villify as libs or whatever. When the reality is large businesses are typically the most efficient means of providing highly technical services on any sort of broad scale. All I would say to them is try sourcing a mom and pop solar panel manufacturer. Now renewables and the proposition that they will replace fossil fuels is simply unrealistic to say the least. Take food as an analogy. To argue that legumes and grains are the most efficent means of caloric production would be relatively accurate, but that doesn't mean they'll replace beef and poultry; or vice versa, meat tastes better, but you can't eat meat all the time(scurvy and all). It's finding a balance based upon the lesser opportunity cost. It might seem irrational to install a solar farm floating in the sumps of a coal pit mine when coal is readily available to produce the energy needed for the operation. But consider the alternative use for the coal not used could instead coke a foundry instead, where iron ore is plentiful but energy is not. That's the basics of economic alternatives.

The fact of the matter is our energy demand is high and energy prices are rising. Rather or not subsidies will solve that issue will depend upon how we, as consumers and citizens, respond. If we respond to higher gas prices by merely increasing conventional production, then alternative energy subsidies will probably fail to help our society. If we instead embrace energy conservation and alternative energy sources a little sooner, being encouraged by an incentive and thereby reducing our dependance on fossil fuels(esp. foreign) sooner, than I would say alternative energy subsidies will have succeeded. We've subsidized traditional energy sources because it has benefitted our society and I think its a reasonable assumption that alternative energy investment will do the same --Wouldn't you agree?:thumb:

So I villify liberals eh? :laugh2: It is common for people to tell me that when I point out the truth about liberals and the results of their policies LR

The record of "green" energy is poor to say the least

The Chevy Volt is the electrric Edsel

I have read accounts where "green" wind turbines freeze up in cold climates

Or "green" stop lights that use less energy consuming bulbs allow snow/ice to accumlate and drivers cannot see the color. Accidents then occur

Yet libs have no problem pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into their deams of a "green" economy

In the free market, if the demand is there - a private firm will find a way to fill the demand. It is not the governments role to decide what the public will buy. Unless you are a liberal and you know what is best for the rest of us. Libs live to pick winners and losers in our economy

We saw what happened to the "green" economy of Greece and libs are determined to make the same thing happen here

Obama's economic and energy polices are the reason gas prices are soaring




Gasoline has exceeded or approached $5.00 per gallon in some parts of the United States long before the normal peak travel season has begun. Already the politicians, headline writers, and some cable and talk show pundits are pointing to the usual suspects. But they have avoided or are unaware of where the fault actually lies.

One of the foundational tenets of economics is what is known as the law of supply and demand. Normally whenever a product or commodity is in short supply the cost to acquire it increases; on the other hand, if there is a glut on the market the price decreases. However, over the past three years, thanks to the profligate fiscal policy of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress combined with the money creating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, this law has been turned on its head.

There are two commodities deeply affected: the first is oil, which is a basic modern day necessity; and the second is gold, which has always been a safe haven against economic downturns that reflect this upside down world.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/gasoline_and_dollars_supply_an.html

[red states rule]

data source??? here's an intl perspective.

source:http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/friday_factoids_why_phasing_ou.shtml

This isn't really a partisan issue, unless you think dems alone favor renewable energy. There's always more to a statistic than meets the eye. Solar and wind only produce some of the time, but receive the subsidies for all the time. But really that's aside from the point. What is necessary is the determination of need through cost/benefit analysis. A subsidized transition to renewables represents an increase in short-term social costs in the interest of expediting long-term benefits; whereas fossil fuel subsidies benefit society in the short term, while long-term benefits are fleeting. I'm all for free-markets, but given the reality of energy policy, subsidies aren't going away-- at least they can go in a better direction. I don't think I speak of a liberal persuasion to say renewables are better direction.

You must be watching "Hardboiled" LR :laugh2:


<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kbKItK2fnsk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>







Nobody? You mean nobody in this country understands the law of supply and demand and that if we were actually to increase the production of oil by drilling for more of our own that would necessarily bring down oil and gas prices?

Show of hands: who thinks America drilling for more oil would bring down oil and gas prices?

And this guy has not one but two nationally broadcast television programs.

Could you possibly take seriously anything said by a man so obviously ignorant about something we all learned in grammar school?

Simple lapses in reason like this make it even more preposterous when Matthews criticizes the intellectual capacity of folks like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann who I guarantee understand that increased American drilling would immediately cause energy speculators to sell their long positions on the various commodities exchanges around the world and likely go short.

But the high and mighty Mr. Matthews clearly doesn't understand such things.

Did I mention he's got two nationally broadcast television programs?

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/25/chris-matthews-nobody-thinks-country-can-drill-its-way-out-high-gas-p#ixzz1KcMA2aKC

[logroller]

Hardboiled:laugh2: I don't even have cable, let alone watch cable pundits-- I prefer to form my own opinions. Drilling we need, I never said we didn't. I just don't think oil and gas alone are gonna solve our energy issues. Try to be a little less near-sighted. It'll bring down the price, sure, but for how long? Why not reduce our consumption?
Oh that's right-- Windmills and "Green" stoplights icing over-- :rolleyes:, like fossil fuels and drilling don't cause problems. Besides, wouldn't it be worse if the "red" lights weren't visible.:laugh2::laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Hardboiled:laugh2: I don't even have cable, let alone watch cable pundits-- I prefer to form my own opinions. Drilling we need, I never said we didn't. I just don't think oil and gas alone are gonna solve our energy issues. Try to be a little less near-sighted. It'll bring down the price, sure, but for how long? Why not reduce our consumption?
Oh that's right-- Windmills and "Green" stoplights icing over-- :rolleyes:, like fossil fuels and drilling don't cause problems. Besides, wouldn't it be worse if the "red" lights weren't visible.:laugh2::laugh2:

No one that I've heard has not been saying to work on alternatives, far from it. The problem with those wanting their 'green concerns' to be a panacea is that they are not there yet. The alternative battery/gasoline cars seem the best for most travel in the US so far-meaning further along with getting good mileage AND able to go the distances needed for most people.

HOWEVER, why haven't they pushed to put out a battery only car capable of going say 30 miles between charges for under $6K, no frills? Hmmm? Advertise it as safer than scooter, holds some groceries and dry cleaning? Use it for errands/visiting only? Cheap, clean car for 2nd car or teens for back and forth to school and part time job?

Nope, with the Greenies it's plugged as alternative sources, which like Obama they really mean take it now, developed or not. As if somehow destroying what works will make the 'alternatives' viable. People do get that.

Instead of concentrating on development of niche markets that could show profits and building off of those successes, they've been wanting to implement blanket changes at extreme costs for products that aren't developed to workability. It's a story fraught with failure, present and future.

[fj1200]

HOWEVER, why haven't they pushed to put out a battery only car capable of going say 30 miles between charges for under $6K, no frills? Hmmm? Advertise it as safer than scooter, holds some groceries and dry cleaning? Use it for errands/visiting only? Cheap, clean car for 2nd car or teens for back and forth to school and part time job?

At least two problems, the batteries alone would cost close to $6k and even then government reg.s dictate safety requirements, etc. There isn't any real market for what you're proposing at least in large enough numbers to make real difference. Unfortunately the costs and products available are still in the early adopter phase which means high cost and minimal market acceptance.


Instead of concentrating on development of niche markets that could show profits and building off of those successes, they've been wanting to implement blanket changes at extreme costs for products that aren't developed to workability. It's a story fraught with failure, present and future.

Are you suggesting that a government program do that? They should be working on a new regulatory framework that will allow the innovators to develop technologies that will have a better shot at taking off.

[Kathianne]

At least two problems, the batteries alone would cost close to $6k and even then government reg.s dictate safety requirements, etc. There isn't any real market for what you're proposing at least in large enough numbers to make real difference. Unfortunately the costs and products available are still in the early adopter phase which means high cost and minimal market acceptance.



Are you suggesting that a government program do that? They should be working on a new regulatory framework that will allow the innovators to develop technologies that will have a better shot at taking off.

No, what I'm implying is that under this administration they are pushing this type of framework, trying to use their influences on restricting oil production here and allowing gas prices to rise to create demand for products that aren't market ready.

I agree that the private sector is where the innovations will come in, but none are going to 'come online' in the next year or two that will provide sole replacement for fossil fuels. Contrary to what many seem to think, businesses aren't hiding the developments.

[red states rule]

Hardboiled:laugh2: I don't even have cable, let alone watch cable pundits-- I prefer to form my own opinions. Drilling we need, I never said we didn't. I just don't think oil and gas alone are gonna solve our energy issues. Try to be a little less near-sighted. It'll bring down the price, sure, but for how long? Why not reduce our consumption?
Oh that's right-- Windmills and "Green" stoplights icing over-- :rolleyes:, like fossil fuels and drilling don't cause problems. Besides, wouldn't it be worse if the "red" lights weren't visible.:laugh2::laugh2:

As with the Gulf oil spill, Obama and the left are using high gas prices to push their "green" agenda LR

Obama has done everything possible to drive up the cost of energy is his quest to "treanform" America as he thinks it should be

Remember this quote from the Chosen One?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t4Tmi_fpUHs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Green energy is unproven and to expensive yet Obama keeps plugging away thinking by simply throwing enough money at it it will come to pass

[red states rule]

No, what I'm implying is that under this administration they are pushing this type of framework, trying to use their influences on restricting oil production here and allowing gas prices to rise to create demand for products that aren't market ready.

I agree that the private sector is where the innovations will come in, but none are going to 'come online' in the next year or two that will provide sole replacement for fossil fuels. Contrary to what many seem to think, businesses aren't hiding the developments.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz042511dAPR20110426014540.jpg

[logroller]

No, what I'm implying is that under this administration they are pushing this type of framework, trying to use their influences on restricting oil production here and allowing gas prices to rise to create demand for products that aren't market ready.

I agree that the private sector is where the innovations will come in, but none are going to 'come online' in the next year or two that will provide sole replacement for fossil fuels. Contrary to what many seem to think, businesses aren't hiding the developments.

I live in an oil rich area, and we have consistantly paid more at the pump than LA-- so supply alone doesn't determine fuel prices. I don't know if their curtailed production is part of a larger picture than the fields here, but locally the production is, at one field for example, 10% of max. The reasoning given by the production engineers is a cost benefit analysis based on long-term production and cost increases, both for extraction and barrel price-- determining both to be more stable long-term, if they quit steaming wells. I see that as a private business' right to protect their long-term interests; the fact energy policy encourages such behavior doesn't seem overtly stupid. Drill baby drill stickers are all over where I'm at, not realizing we aren't even using the existing wells maximally-- but people just want jobs, regardless of long-term security.

So far as technology being off track for current production, it probably is. But were gas powered cars introduced without flaws? Ever seen a horseless carriage, not exactly an engineering marvel, they broke down all the time. I mean I think many take for granted the one hundred years of development that has went into modern internal combustion engines, they weren't always what they are. And don't get me started on flexfuel and b20, that technology is like a hundred years old, crushed, no doubt, by prohibition and oil lobbies.

I do like your idea on cheaper electric cars, I don't know why its not done-- I assume not enough profit in it to justify hightech batteries being diverted from other demand markets, like hybrids, whose profit margins are high and require less of the batteries. The batteries are the real crux of the problem. That's why car mnfrs like toyota give smoking trade-in rates to get those batteries with whatever rare-earth widgetonium China has a monopoly on.

I'm curious, anyone know about the electric vehicle tax credit, its been around for years, but I haven't heard much about it (probably cuz I'm in bigtruckcity). Did it begin in the 2005 energy bill? what's the estimated cost to revenues? I guess I just want to know how prevalent are electric cars?

[red states rule]

Perhaps the electric car is not selling because people do not want them. How can you drive a car that gets 40 miles on a single charge?

Libs do not care if people do not want them - they will do all they can to force them on us''After all, libs know what is best for us. Just ask them

[logroller]

Perhaps the electric car is not selling because people do not want them. How can you drive a car that gets 40 miles on a single charge?


I could drive a car that gets 40 miles on a single charge. I don't drive that far. I think there's 80k on my '91.
I think people are missing the reality of the big picture. Everybody expects a replacement for the millions of miles driven in personal cars everyday. I don't think anything but fossil fuels can deliver that, not at current numbers driven. But there are other alternatives, mass transit for one. Why not invest into that instead? Perhaps people don't want that. I'm reminded of two year-old on Easter when I told him we had to eat dinner, not candy---- NO. choclit!

[red states rule]

What planet do these libs live on? Once again the liberal media is attempting to "report" the US economy is fine and $ to $5/gal gas is OK and people can afford it

Do you remember how bad high prices were HURTING people when Bush was in offcie?

What a difference in the "reporting" now that a Dem sits in the WH




WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American economy is now strong enough to withstand Middle East turmoil and the Japanese nuclear crisis. Only a big rise in the price of oil could stop it now.

Those are the findings of an Associated Press survey of leading economists, who are increasingly confident in a recovery that is nearly two years old. They expect the economy to grow faster every quarter this year.

In part, that's because the economists think Americans will spend more freely in the coming months. Higher stock prices have made people wealthier. And a cut in the Social Security payroll tax is giving most households an extra $1,000 to $2,000 this year.

The one factor that could make a second recession a possibility would be a jump in oil prices to $150 a barrel, economists say. Oil trades at about $112 a barrel now. The record high, set in the summer of 2008, is about $147 a barrel.

"The economy is regaining some of its lost muscle and now seems to have a much thicker skin than it did six months or a year ago, and that's helping it handle various negative forces," said Lynn Reaser, a board member of the National Association for Business Economics.

While oil has risen almost $40 a barrel since Labor Day, analysts think it would take something extraordinary to drive the price all the way to a new record - either supply disruptions because of a new front in the Mideast unrest or action by the Federal Reserve that brings down the value of the dollar.

Economists think gas prices, now averaging $3.87 a gallon and rising every day, will stabilize by summer and drop to about $3.50 by fall. Rising gas prices are taking up much of what Americans are pocketing from the Social Security tax cut

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_ECONOMY_SURVEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-26-16-21-15

[red states rule]

I could drive a car that gets 40 miles on a single charge. I don't drive that far. I think there's 80k on my '91.
I think people are missing the reality of the big picture. Everybody expects a replacement for the millions of miles driven in personal cars everyday. I don't think anything but fossil fuels can deliver that, not at current numbers driven. But there are other alternatives, mass transit for one. Why not invest into that instead? Perhaps people don't want that. I'm reminded of two year-old on Easter when I told him we had to eat dinner, not candy---- NO. choclit!

Well some people have jobs that require a drive longer then 40 miles. Some people drive sale routes in their car. Others have a business they operate out of their car

Like other services, when government needs money (not that it ever does not need more money) theyu raise the cost of mass transit.

Look at AMTRAK. In over 30 years it has NEVER turned a profit. Taxpayers continue to pick up the tab

I have over 225,000 milies on my Toyota Echo and she runs fine

[logroller]

Well some people have jobs that require a drive longer then 40 miles. Some people drive sale routes in their car. Others have a business they operate out of their car
Those people NEED to drive longer distances. You said people don't WANT them(electric cars). Wants and needs are different. I want a sailboat, but I don't need one.


Like other services, when government needs money (not that it ever does not need more money) they raise the cost of mass transit.
"Like other services" - indeed. They say they raise car reg fees to cover road maintainance too. But that's a fiscal policy. I don't see the correlation to energy policy.


Look at AMTRAK. In over 30 years it has NEVER turned a profit. Taxpayers continue to pick up the tab
I hardly consider AMTRAK mass transit, its like a pleasure cruise-- it goes nowhere, slowly.


I have over 225,000 milies on my Toyota Echo and she runs fine

Sweet! Using a car which gets high gas mileage, taking care that it last a long time... I'll bet you keep the tire pressure adjusted too-- how very green of you:thumb:

[logroller]

What planet do these libs live on? Once again the liberal media is attempting to "report" the US economy is fine and $ to $5/gal gas is OK and people can afford it

Do you remember how bad high prices were HURTING people when Bush was in offcie?

What a difference in the "reporting" now that a Dem sits in the WH

They live on Earth, its a worldwide oil market.

You mean to tell me media drives the supply and demand for oil??? That number at the pump tells me all I need to know-- not media.

Facts are facts red. Latest numbers on world oil consumption are highest ever, atleast as far back as 1994 that I checked. Understand demand drives price too, not just supply. Canada produces more oil than they consume (net exporter) , they pay more already and they still see their gas prices rising.
http://66.70.86.64/ChartServer/ch.gaschart?Country=Canada&Crude=f&Period=1&Areas=USA Average,Canada Average,&Unit=US $/G


This data isn't as current, but I doubt there's much change in the discrepancy.
http://images.businessweek.com/PK/2011/03/gasmap1.png

Don't believe for a minute US drilling will have more effect on the prices than reducing our demand for it, we simply use far more oil now than we will ever produce--period.

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gasprices/images/oil_savings_chart.png

[Kathianne]

Yep, US drilling and mining our resources, increasing refineries would change supplies. We're already #3 country in production:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html


This entry is the total oil produced in barrels per day (bbl/day). The discrepancy between the amount of oil produced and/or imported and the amount consumed and/or exported is due to the omission of stock changes, refinery gains, and other complicating factors.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2iutiev.png

[fj1200]

They live on Earth, its a worldwide oil market.

You mean to tell me media drives the supply and demand for oil??? That number at the pump tells me all I need to know-- not media.

Freak him out and show him the price of oil compared to the price of gold and all the other traded commodities.

[logroller]

Freak him out and show him the price of oil compared to the price of gold and all the other traded commodities.

Guess I've taken truth long enough, time for a dare.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Nov/crude-gold-4-1.jpg

Go back to the time gold was set free by Richard Nixon and that explains 74% of the changes in the price of gold year on year. But by that marker, with oil averaging say $80 gold ought to be about $1,000; so according to that logic now gold at $1,360 is a bubble.

Of course another way to look at that is that Gold is correctly priced and oil, these days, ought to be $150.



Here's a little sumthin extra, for the shill cartel members!:thumb:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24034.html


Simple, one thing, add $5 a gallon tax on gasoline, that would pump up “inflation” which is what Ben has been trying to do for the past two year (sadly he couldn’t get it up), and after a while it would start to address the $500 billion a year, rising soon to $1,000 billion a year, that America spends buying oil.

Oil prices used to be determined by the amount the oil producers could “Milk Daisy” for, which is what Parasite Economics is all about. That’s how much blood can you suck out of your “host” before he drops down dead. But now “Daisy” is not just USA, it’s the whole world, and any oil producer with any sense (with a government that is not trying to grab the money and run), is keeping their oil in the ground.

Gold prices are not going to go down, but oil prices are going to go up (measured in dollars), as the consequences of the corrupt politicians (in USA and UK too – don’t forget Tony Blair’s psychopathic Special Relationship, plus the Freemasons and the Labour Unions), who should long ago have got the Edward II treatment…unfolds into it’s logical conclusion.

Hold on to your Stetsons!!

[red states rule]

LR maybe I did not make myself clear so I will try again

When Bush was in offcie the liberal media ran daily stories on the hardshops of $3/gal gas.

NOW that Obama is in office they are trying to tell us $4/gal gas is OK

I remember seeing "news stories" about the poor single mom who did not have the gas to take her kids to the Doctor

I have not seen any of these tear jerker stories now that Obama is in the WH

The electric care is not for most people. It sucks going up hills, it has bad accleration, and the number of miles per charge stinks. It is also way to expensive. So why would anyone be shocked most people do not want them?

It is Economics 101 LR. You increase the supply of something the price will go down. Obama has done everything to keep the supply from increasing and LOVES these high gas prices

So what if working families are screwed? He cares more about his stupid green agenda where the cost of energy is much higher then what it is now

As usual government will NEVER go without LR. Libs will never miss a chance to take more of your money regardless how tight your budget is. Yet some people try to justify the theft

[logroller]

LR maybe I did not make myself clear so I will try again

When Bush was in offcie the liberal media ran daily stories on the hardshops of $3/gal gas.

NOW that Obama is in office they are trying to tell us $4/gal gas is OK

I remember seeing "news stories" about the poor single mom who did not have the gas to take her kids to the Doctor

I have not seen any of these tear jerker stories now that Obama is in the WH

The electric care is not for most people. It sucks going up hills, it has bad accleration, and the number of miles per charge stinks. It is also way to expensive. So why would anyone be shocked most people do not want them?

It is Economics 101 LR. You increase the supply of something the price will go down. Obama has done everything to keep the supply from increasing and LOVES these high gas prices

So what if working families are screwed? He cares more about his stupid green agenda where the cost of energy is much higher then what it is now

As usual government will NEVER go without LR. Libs will never miss a chance to take more of your money regardless how tight your budget is. Yet some people try to justify the theft

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't care what media has to say about it, didn't then, don't know. Their opinions are based on what sells the most ads, not what is the best information(econ 101). If stories about "america waking up to the reality of the inflated dollar, that its our fault for over-consuming and not somebody else's" ACTUALLY sold more ads than "its their fault" -- media might be a legitimate source. But the reality is people like the cheap gas to put in their big cars and toys, to eat out instead of in, spend money instead of save. You wanna talk about liberal, that's liberal-- its not a matter of politics, its just a foolish practice and its not the libs who get are getting rich off of it. Why would you think libs are the ones pushing such ideas -- because the wealthy people say so???

[red states rule]

Oh I get what you're saying. I just don't care what media has to say about it, didn't then, don't know. Their opinions are based on what sells the most ads, not what is the best information(econ 101). If stories about "america waking up to the reality of the inflated dollar, that its our fault for over-consuming and not somebody else's" ACTUALLY sold more ads than "its their fault" -- media might be a legitimate source. But the reality is people like the cheap gas to put in their big cars and toys, to eat out instead of in, spend money instead of save. You wanna talk about liberal, that's liberal-- its not a matter of politics, its just a foolish practice and its not the libs who get are getting rich off of it. Why would you think libs are the ones pushing such ideas -- because the wealthy people say so???

I crack up when people say they don't care about the liberal media and their clear bias. When I went to school I was taught JOURNALISM was telling people the who, what, when, where, and why of a story

Not to slant the story to fit their political beliefs. They are out to keep Dems in power so they can screw you over even more

Excuse me if I want cheaper gas to go to work everyday. Or to have cheaper prices for the food I buy

People who "over consume" do keep people employed LR Those few poeple who still have jobs that is

[Kathianne]

Yep, US drilling and mining our resources, increasing refineries would change supplies. We're already #3 country in production:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html

I came across that #3 thing in my assorted readings today. Found this just now:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/cole-president-doesnt-know-squat-about-energy-production


By Mark Tapscott
Created Apr 27 2011 - 12:38pm
Cole: "The president doesn't know squat about energy production"

Oklahoma is one of the nation's top energy states, so it's no surprise that its senators and representatives are opposed to President Obama's energy and environmental policies. What is surprising, however, is the intensity of their reactions to Obama's proposal to do away with $4 billion worth of energy industry tax breaks.

The proposal was contained in a letter from the president to Congress, but Sen. Jim Inhofe, the Sooner state's senior senator, noted that the Democratic Senate has voted 61-35 against the idea just a few months ago. "He now wants Congress to do exactly the opposite," Inhofe told the Daily Oklahoman. "His letter is merely a distraction from what every American knows can help restrain rising prices: increase supply, that is, increase American energy production."

Similarly, Rep. Tom Cole, minced no words, saying Obama "doesn't know squat about energy production." As a result, Cole added in an interview with the Oklahoman, "we get great politics out of the White House. We just don't get great policy" because the president doesn't understand the differences in operations and priorities between an Exxon Mobil and a small independent producer...

...“The president now says his administration is pushing major oil producers to increase oil output in an effort to lower prices. What he really needs is to have someone tell the government of the world’s third largest oil producer to boost output. In case he is unaware, that oil producer is the United States.

“He could do that at his next cabinet meeting by telling EPA to stop holding up Shell’s drilling in Alaska and by telling Secretary Salazar to stop closing access to our nation’s energy supplies, which the Congressional Research Service says are larger than any country on earth.

“The president is beginning to look like the Ugly American in his attempts to point the finger of blame anywhere but his record, which includes seeking higher taxes on energy and stopping energy production wherever possible. It requires a suspension of disbelief to accept his protests about higher energy prices when that is his policy. His chickens are coming home to roost.”

For more from Kish and IER, go here. (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/)

BTW, Obama should spend a few hours looking at the IER site.

[fj1200]

Guess I've taken truth long enough, time for a dare.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2010/Nov/crude-gold-4-1.jpg

Nice graph, oil prices are a result of central bank failure, not speculators, not collusion between government and oil companies, and not a failure in supply and demand.

[fj1200]

LR maybe I did not make myself clear so I will try again

When Bush was in offcie the liberal media...

The electric care is not for most people...

It is Economics 101 LR. You increase the supply of something...

As usual government will NEVER go without LR...

It seems you've got at least four different complaints going, that's not so clear.

[logroller]

I crack up when people say they don't care about the liberal media and their clear bias. When I went to school I was taught JOURNALISM was telling people the who, what, when, where, and why of a story
I learned that too, in addition to considering your audience, the implications, presuppositions, consequences -- that's your standard critical thinking model!


Not to slant the story to fit their political beliefs. They are out to keep Dems in power so they can screw you over even more
Slant sells red, journalists want jobs too. Like FoxNews doesn't slant a story. Ugh, the one thing I hate about libs is their whining and blaming everybody else for the problems in this world; sounds to me like you're sleeping with the enemy.

Excuse me if I want cheaper gas to go to work everyday. Or to have cheaper prices for the food I buy
Either or, that's my point; the artificially cheap gas for the last 40+ years has driven up the cost of everything else.

People who "over consume" do keep people employed LR Those few poeple who still have jobs that is

Sure. Nevermind they're employed in an inflated market that drives up the cost of living to the point they can't survive, but hey-- they got a job, right?

I doubt you think increased govt spending helps the economy, why do you think private spending would have a different result? Understand spending isn't investment. We spent a decade or more spending away our investments, hence toxicity. GDP was high and people had jobs, all signs of a healthy economy; but investments were inflated to accomodate overspending. What the market is going through right now is deflation, a corrective reaction to bad investing and overspending. The reason gas still goes up is because it was intentionally undervalued to assuage public sentiment. Now the gigs up, and oil companies don't want to pump until the price goes up to its real market value. probably $150/bbl

You know that saying about fool me once... well the causes and indications are pretty much uniform between now and what led to the great depression, overvalued investments and overspending. Well now it's been done twice, so we're to blame, not media or the govt.

[gabosaurus]

Well stated, logroller. But don't expect RSR to agree with you. A true ConRep is never wrong. Even when they are.

[fj1200]

Either or, that's my point; the artificially cheap gas for the last 40+ years has driven up the cost of everything else.

How did low gas drive up the costs of everything else?


Sure. Nevermind they're employed in an inflated market that drives up the cost of living to the point they can't survive, but hey-- they got a job, right?

What drives up the cost of living?


I doubt you think increased govt spending helps the economy, why do you think private spending would have a different result? Understand spending isn't investment. We spent a decade or more spending away our investments, hence toxicity. GDP was high and people had jobs, all signs of a healthy economy; but investments were inflated to accomodate overspending. What the market is going through right now is deflation, a corrective reaction to bad investing and overspending. The reason gas still goes up is because it was intentionally undervalued to assuage public sentiment. Now the gigs up, and oil companies don't want to pump until the price goes up to its real market value. probably $150/bbl

Disagree, it's more like stagflation; the stag is the higher taxes and government involvement and the 'flation is... well you know that one. :laugh:

Whether government "investment" helps is whether you think private citizens/enterprises will invest it more efficiently; I happen to think the latter.


You know that saying about fool me once... well the causes and indications are pretty much uniform between now and what led to the great depression, overvalued investments and overspending. Well now it's been done twice, so we're to blame, not media or the govt.

No, did you miss the part about higher taxes and government intervention? Hoover was not laissez-faire as the left requires for the sainthood of FDR to live.


Well stated, logroller. But don't expect RSR to agree with you. A true ConRep is never wrong. Even when they are.

I doubt you understand what he said.

[LuvRPgrl]

I learned that too, in addition to considering your audience, the implications, presuppositions, consequences -- that's your standard critical thinking model!


Slant sells red, journalists want jobs too. Like FoxNews doesn't slant a story. Ugh, the one thing I hate about libs is their whining and blaming everybody else for the problems in this world; sounds to me like you're sleeping with the enemy.

Either or, that's my point; the artificially cheap gas for the last 40+ years has driven up the cost of everything else.


Sure. Nevermind they're employed in an inflated market that drives up the cost of living to the point they can't survive, but hey-- they got a job, right?

I doubt you think increased govt spending helps the economy, why do you think private spending would have a different result? Understand spending isn't investment. We spent a decade or more spending away our investments, hence toxicity. GDP was high and people had jobs, all signs of a healthy economy; but investments were inflated to accomodate overspending. What the market is going through right now is deflation, a corrective reaction to bad investing and overspending. The reason gas still goes up is because it was intentionally undervalued to assuage public sentiment. Now the gigs up, and oil companies don't want to pump until the price goes up to its real market value. probably $150/bbl

You know that saying about fool me once... well the causes and indications are pretty much uniform between now and what led to the great depression, overvalued investments and overspending. Well now it's been done twice, so we're to blame, not media or the govt.

MOSTLY good stuff, but hey, agreement is boring, and I'M ALL ABOUT THE RATINGS (rep me, rep me!) hahahhahah,

Now, the bad, spending is investing. When the govt spends, it basically just shuffles papers around, and redistributes money.

Take medical for example, when a person buys private insurance, they spend their money on a doctor, nurses, etc, which is an investment in their health and drives the economy.

Now, when the govt gets involved, they force the person to pay higher taxes, then offer insurance, and then the doctor gets paid via the govt.
All they have done is reroute the money thru their coffers, nothing extra produced, but lots of waste, fraud, extra paperwork,,,,,

[logroller]

How did low gas drive up the costs of everything else?

Er, uh, "these aren't my pants" I meant--drill,baby,drill. Big oil will solve all our problems.:laugh:

That's probably best handled in separate post...(hint, its not low gas, its undervalued gas, as in effects of subsidy/tariff. did that help?)


What drives up the cost of living?
What is Inflation?-- I'll take understanding the equation of exchange for $200.


Disagree, it's more like stagflation; the stag is the higher taxes and government involvement and the 'flation is... well you know that one. :laugh:
I think that only reinforces the point on similarity, but I was speaking specifically to private response (excessive faith in markets, then panicked withdrawal) which is proliferated by government involvement.


Whether government "investment" helps is whether you think private citizens/enterprises will invest it more efficiently; I happen to think the latter.

Agreed. Just trying to keep it simple. Private vs public, way different. Private investment is like a fine sportscar, fast, responsive, able to react to market factors quickly; while govt is more like the titanic, slow and massive... "unsinkable" or "too big to fail":laugh:
Govt investment is way different than private. public works, nat'l forest and military. Stuff like that I see as investment, not really the fed or trade agreements though; those effect investment, but its really just big brothers big hand pushing the invisible hand of the market around, not investment in and of itself. For the most part govt just spends and uses policy to influence spending, not investment. (IMO this is to increase tax revenues, not public good.) I believe the inverse holds true, less govt spending can influence investment too-- but only if we want to -- but then we can do that anyways, right?

That's why I'm saying accept the personal responsibility, don't let big bro's hand push our's around. Its the public's response to that influx of money that matters, if we spend more than we invest, that's a bad thing. Not to say govt, through tax policy and such, doesn't reward spending or investment, but I don't believe the majority of the public understands the difference between rich and wealthy or how you can have one and not the other. I'm not rich, but I'm wealthy. Live within my means, grow my investments, spend prudently. I'll buy a case of $50/btl wine, but I split a meal with my wife if we dine out. I'm not saying everybody should do that, but they should valuate things on value, not price. Price is never a sole consideration, an exchange has downstream effects we should consider also (like investment).



No, did you miss the part about higher taxes and government intervention? Hoover was not laissez-faire as the left requires for the sainthood of FDR to live.


Capitalism is all about numbers, and taxes are for people who covet the numbers of dollars.:poke::laugh2:

To demonstrate what I mean, search barroom economics. (I posted it previously but couldn't find it) Now I understand this was meant to explain taxes, but the analogy holds true for my point as well.These ten men valuated the experience in terms of what they were paying, as opposed to what they were getting. In the end they lost what they were getting, the real value, and ended up paying more because they were overly concerned with the $ spent. What I'm talking about is circumventing the social contract, not allowing govt to dictate behavior we don't consent to. You don't like the bar prices, entertain at home. If people didn't get all huffy about higher gas prices, what would govt have to influence the next election-- Real solutions? Power to the people.:salute:

[red states rule]

The liberal media continues to try and convince viewers/readers Pres Obama is totally blameless when it comes to high gas prices

Of course they held Pres Bush totally responsible during his years as President

You can tell the liberal media is on the campaign trail with the Bamster






MSNBC's Chuck Todd rattled off a list of reasons to explain the sharp rise in the price of oil – none of which included Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium – and was "confused" about why anyone would blame the president for the prospect of $4 per gallon gasoline.

On the April 28 "Daily Rundown," Todd suggested the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing measures and increases in global demand account for the dramatic spike in oil, but he absolved the president of any blame.

"I guess what I'm confused about, how is this an administration – what is it that the president could have done about the price of gasoline?" wondered Todd, interviewing Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

The junior senator from Mississippi retorted that the president should stop "slow-walking" permits for oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico to allow domestic firms to tap into the "plentiful oil resources that we have here in the United States of America."

After making excuses for the Democratic president, Todd boldly asserted that "there doesn't seem to be any expert that believes" Obama could have done anything to prevent the price of gasoline from eclipsing $4 per gallon.

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/alex-fitzsimmons/2011/04/28/confused-chuck-todd-dont-blame-obama-rising-gas-prices#ixzz1KrBMKD7U

[logroller]

MOSTLY good stuff, but hey, agreement is boring, and I'M ALL ABOUT THE RATINGS (rep me, rep me!) hahahhahah,
You're too kind, but perception is reality.


Now, the bad, spending is investing. When the govt spends, it basically just shuffles papers around, and redistributes money.

Logical proof: A is B. Govt does A, govt does B. Govt spends, so shuffling papers around and redistributing money is investing. False premise--- spending isn't investing!


Take medical for example, when a person buys private insurance, they spend their money on a doctor, nurses, etc, which is an investment in their health and drives the economy.

A person eating healthy and exercising is investing in one's health. Buying insurance is mitigating your financial risk should you require medical attention. When I give money to blue cross and I don't go to the doctor, they still send some of that money to the doctors. I guess that's an investment in the medical field that I can take advantage of should the need arise, but it isn't a direct investment into my health. That's like saying ssi and unemployment insurance are investments.


Now, when the govt gets involved, they force the person to pay higher taxes, then offer insurance, and then the doctor gets paid via the govt.
All they have done is reroute the money thru their coffers, nothing extra produced, but lots of waste, fraud, extra paperwork,,,,,

I could make the same critique of private insurance. I think insurance drives up the cost of healthcare too. You're arguing which middleman gives us the most bang for our buck.

[fj1200]

Er, uh, "these aren't my pants" I meant--drill,baby,drill. Big oil will solve all our problems.:laugh:

That's probably best handled in separate post...(hint, its not low gas, its undervalued gas, as in effects of subsidy/tariff. did that help?)

No, but I am a bit tired.


What is Inflation?-- I'll take understanding the equation of exchange for $200.

What drives up inflation? I think I'm drawing out a point but it escapes me right now.


I think that only reinforces the point on similarity, but I was speaking specifically to private response (excessive faith in markets, then panicked withdrawal) which is proliferated by government involvement.

:shrug:


Agreed. Just trying to keep it simple. Private vs public, way different. Private investment is like a fine sportscar, fast, responsive, able to react to market factors quickly; while govt is more like the titanic, slow and massive... "unsinkable" or "too big to fail":laugh:
Govt investment is way different than private. public works, nat'l forest and military. Stuff like that I see as investment, not really the fed or trade agreements though; those effect investment, but its really just big brothers big hand pushing the invisible hand of the market around, not investment in and of itself. For the most part govt just spends and uses policy to influence spending, not investment. (IMO this is to increase tax revenues, not public good.) I believe the inverse holds true, less govt spending can influence investment too-- but only if we want to -- but then we can do that anyways, right?

How much of spending falls into that category? It's not like we're building the Interstate Highway System again.


That's why I'm saying accept the personal responsibility, don't let big bro's hand push our's around. Its the public's response to that influx of money that matters, if we spend more than we invest, that's a bad thing. Not to say govt, through tax policy and such, doesn't reward spending or investment, but I don't believe the majority of the public understands the difference between rich and wealthy or how you can have one and not the other. I'm not rich, but I'm wealthy. Live within my means, grow my investments, spend prudently. I'll buy a case of $50/btl wine, but I split a meal with my wife if we dine out. I'm not saying everybody should do that, but they should valuate things on value, not price. Price is never a sole consideration, an exchange has downstream effects we should consider also (like investment).

There's a difference between macro and micro. You can't just ignore inflation and Fed mismanagement.


Capitalism is all about numbers, and taxes are for people who covet the numbers of dollars.:poke::laugh2:

To demonstrate what I mean, search barroom economics. (I posted it previously but couldn't find it) Now I understand this was meant to explain taxes, but the analogy holds true for my point as well.These ten men valuated the experience in terms of what they were paying, as opposed to what they were getting. In the end they lost what they were getting, the real value, and ended up paying more because they were overly concerned with the $ spent. What I'm talking about is circumventing the social contract, not allowing govt to dictate behavior we don't consent to. You don't like the bar prices, entertain at home. If people didn't get all huffy about higher gas prices, what would govt have to influence the next election-- Real solutions? Power to the people.:salute:

Weren't we talking about the Great Depression?

[logroller]

No, but I am a bit tired.



What drives up inflation? I think I'm drawing out a point but it escapes me right now.



:shrug:



How much of spending falls into that category? It's not like we're building the Interstate Highway System again.



There's a difference between macro and micro. You can't just ignore inflation and Fed mismanagement.



Weren't we talking about the Great Depression?
I wasn't talking to you fj. :2up:
When everybody understands this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange
perhaps your/our banter will reach a general audience.

[logroller]

The liberal media continues to try and convince viewers/readers Pres Obama is totally blameless when it comes to high gas prices

Of course they held Pres Bush totally responsible during his years as President

You can tell the liberal media is on the campaign trail with the Bamster

And the broken record plays on...and on...and on...

[red states rule]

And the broken record plays on...and on...and on...

and it will continue to be the tune the liberal media plays all the up to November 2012

Now Obama is just too damn smart to be popular




Seeking a template to understand the enigmatic president, I consulted three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior. With their help, I put Obama on the couch and came away with a reasonably coherent diagnosis: There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head.

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics,” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”

Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-lost-in-thought/2011/04/26/AF0FrwsE_story.html?hpid=z3

[logroller]

and it will continue to be the tune the liberal media plays all the up to November 2012

Now Obama is just too damn smart to be popular

You're preachin to choir red. Whois the pony?

[fj1200]

I wasn't talking to you fj. :2up:

Don't make me come out there.


When everybody understands this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange
perhaps your/our banter will reach a general audience.

I prefer to restate it as the Quantity Theory of Money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money). But don't hold your breath. ;)

[red states rule]

Have no fear the Dems feel your pain. Sen Mark Warner (D-VA) has the answer to high gas prices.

He sent out this email to his supporters and here his solution to $4/gal gas

Look for cheaper prices!!!!!




Dear Friends: (how the heck did I get on that list?)

I’ve heard from many of you about the skyrocketing gas prices and I understand the strain that these dramatic increases are placing on family budgets.

Finding the lowest gas prices in your area and researching alternative ways of reducing your fuel consumption can help ease the burden of these cost increases.

Finding the lowest prices in your area will ensure immediate savings at the pump. The following link (ooo Mapquest!) will allow you to find the lowest gas prices in your area in a fast and convenient way.

I would also recommend the Department of Energy’s guide to fuel economy. It offers several helpful tips that will help you reduce your fuel consumption and maximize the gas mileage in your automobile.

I am a strong advocate for an “all of the above” approach to energy, and I believe the United States should lead the world in producing the clean, safer fuels of the 21st Century.

I hope these resources help you reduce your fuel costs and drive in a smarter, more wallet-friendly manner. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Senator Mark Warner

http://newsodrome.com/weapon_news/mark-warner-s-solution-to-higher-gas-prices-look-for-cheaper-gas-25421389

[red states rule]

I learned that too, in addition to considering your audience, the implications, presuppositions, consequences -- that's your standard critical thinking model!


Slant sells red, journalists want jobs too. Like FoxNews doesn't slant a story. Ugh, the one thing I hate about libs is their whining and blaming everybody else for the problems in this world; sounds to me like you're sleeping with the enemy.

Either or, that's my point; the artificially cheap gas for the last 40+ years has driven up the cost of everything else.


Sure. Nevermind they're employed in an inflated market that drives up the cost of living to the point they can't survive, but hey-- they got a job, right?

I doubt you think increased govt spending helps the economy, why do you think private spending would have a different result? Understand spending isn't investment. We spent a decade or more spending away our investments, hence toxicity. GDP was high and people had jobs, all signs of a healthy economy; but investments were inflated to accomodate overspending. What the market is going through right now is deflation, a corrective reaction to bad investing and overspending. The reason gas still goes up is because it was intentionally undervalued to assuage public sentiment. Now the gigs up, and oil companies don't want to pump until the price goes up to its real market value. probably $150/bbl

You know that saying about fool me once... well the causes and indications are pretty much uniform between now and what led to the great depression, overvalued investments and overspending. Well now it's been done twice, so we're to blame, not media or the govt.

and Obama's solution to high gas prices is to have other nations drill for oil so we will not have to

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042711/content/01125112.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg





WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama on Tuesday urged world oil producers to lift crude output, as he sought to deflect public anger over high gasoline prices that has hurt his popularity among voters.

U.S. motor fuel prices have become a heated political issue after pushing toward $4 a gallon. Gasoline futures hit 33-month highs on Tuesday.

The rising prices at the pump are fueling voter discontent with Obama's leadership, opinion polls show, and could harm his re-election chances in 2012.

"They need to increase supplies," Obama told CBS affiliate WTKR in Hampton Roads, Virginia. "We are in a lot of conversations with major oil producers like Saudi Arabia," he separately told WXYZ television in Detroit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110427/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_oil_letter

[red states rule]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/175152.jpg

[fj1200]

and Obama's solution to high gas prices is to have other nations drill for oil so we will not have to

Doesn't he spend half his time complaining about off-shoring of jobs? Yeah, I wouldn't expect anyone to ask him about that contradiction either.

[red states rule]

Doesn't he spend half his time complaining about off-shoring of jobs? Yeah, I wouldn't expect anyone to ask him about that contradiction either.

It should be common knowledge by now that every promise, statement, and policy put out by Obama comes with an expiration date