Follow up to Pete's thread below
-
[Message Deleted]
Gold
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Your post would suggest the following: Only those who can afford to buy the petrol at those prices, should do so, everyone else who needs the petrol yet can't afford it, must suffer. And yes, there are people who need it, not everyone has a viable alternative method of travel to work. Do you think it morally acceptable to price people off the road? With that kind of thinking, you should be a Labour MP!
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Here's the thing. Petrol WILL be 2 pounds eventually. It's $1.70 at home, it was $1.50 when I left 2 weeks ago. So, the question becomes: To what degree are petrol station owners not allowed to price their goods at the rate they want to sell it at. In other words, do we want to let supply and demand deal with pricing, or do we want the government to regulate it, and thus close a lot of petrol stations ? The sad fact is, a lot of people are hurting, but the price is not going down any time soon.
Phannon wrote:
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Love this EVERY time I see it.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Phannon wrote:
Only those who can afford to buy the petrol at those prices, should do so, everyone else who needs the petrol yet can't afford it, must suffer.
Sure. That's called capitalism, you know. And the neoliberals are constantly and very successfully fighting against any sort of mitigation of the suffering.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
And the neoliberals are constantly and very successfully fighting against any sort of mitigation of the suffering.
But, if it COSTS this much now to produce gas, how is making it cheaper a long term solution ? It's not. We bleed tax dollars to push gas prices back down, people keep using it like crazy, we run out sooner ( b/c we WILL run out, even if the naysayers are wrong and it's not for some time yet ), and the economy is falsely propped up, which is never good in the long term.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Gold
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Wow - I got a 1 within a couple of minutes. I feel special.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
I'm fully aware of "Supply and Demand", but how does this explain other petrol stations keeping their prices relatively in line?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
Wow - I got a 1 within a couple of minutes. I feel special.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
[Message Deleted]
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
And the neoliberals are constantly and very successfully fighting against any sort of mitigation of the suffering.
But, if it COSTS this much now to produce gas, how is making it cheaper a long term solution ? It's not. We bleed tax dollars to push gas prices back down, people keep using it like crazy, we run out sooner ( b/c we WILL run out, even if the naysayers are wrong and it's not for some time yet ), and the economy is falsely propped up, which is never good in the long term.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
But, if it COSTS this much now to produce gas,
COSTS are most insinificant for the current primary energy prices. Dwindling value of the Dollar is about one third of it. Speculation is part of it. Rising demand elsewhere is part of it. And how would making energy cheaper, so that no one would dy from cold in the winters *not* help peaople to survive, until the State manages to concince the people to set their air conditions to sane values. And to build houses which keep the warmth in states with cold winters and to allow good air circulation in states with warm summers. Santa Fe with its adobe houses is quite good. Las Vegas with its greenhouse-like hotels is ridicoulous.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
I'm fully aware of "Supply and Demand", but how does this explain other petrol stations keeping their prices relatively in line?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
I'm fully aware of "Supply and Demand", but how does this explain other petrol stations keeping their prices relatively in line?
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*? And of what use at all is "keeping their prices relatively in line" (whatever that means) when the first three blokes in line have bought up all the available gas ... even though they didn't need all they bought ... leaving NONE AT ALL for the other twenty behind them?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, if it COSTS this much now to produce gas,
COSTS are most insinificant for the current primary energy prices. Dwindling value of the Dollar is about one third of it. Speculation is part of it. Rising demand elsewhere is part of it. And how would making energy cheaper, so that no one would dy from cold in the winters *not* help peaople to survive, until the State manages to concince the people to set their air conditions to sane values. And to build houses which keep the warmth in states with cold winters and to allow good air circulation in states with warm summers. Santa Fe with its adobe houses is quite good. Las Vegas with its greenhouse-like hotels is ridicoulous.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
so that no one would dy from cold in the winters
That's a welfare issue. I have plenty of money, and should pay the going rate. People who are struggling, should be helped, the taxes raised through me paying a price based on the cost of energy, can be used to subsidise assistance to the poor.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Las Vegas with its greenhouse-like hotels is ridicoulous.
Yes, it is.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, if it COSTS this much now to produce gas,
COSTS are most insinificant for the current primary energy prices. Dwindling value of the Dollar is about one third of it. Speculation is part of it. Rising demand elsewhere is part of it. And how would making energy cheaper, so that no one would dy from cold in the winters *not* help peaople to survive, until the State manages to concince the people to set their air conditions to sane values. And to build houses which keep the warmth in states with cold winters and to allow good air circulation in states with warm summers. Santa Fe with its adobe houses is quite good. Las Vegas with its greenhouse-like hotels is ridicoulous.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"Speculation doesn't drive up oil prices.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Speculation doesn't drive up oil prices.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation doesn't drive up oil prices.
It does. Othewise, one can not explain why the price is still rising, even when the current supply is greater than the current demand. But speculation is not the sole or main reason fot the price rise. The dollar losing value is much more important, as is a changing pattern of demands.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
Ilíon wrote:
we both know that there are many companies which need your programming expertise (or whatever other skill you are selling), but they simply cannot afford to pay the price you are demanding for your time/effort. CLEARLY, this state of affaires is "immoral" [Roll eyes] and you should be compelled to offer your services at a price these poor companies can afford.
You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see what's wrong with your statement then there's something wrong with you.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see what's wrong with your statement then there's something wrong with you.
Not at all. The *principle* at play is the same in both cases ... and if you cannot see that, then there is something wrong with you.
-
Phannon wrote:
Although I still get the impression that they feel they did no wrong ...
They *didn't* do anything wrong. What they did was the right thing to do: not only in a "facts on the ground" way, but also morally. And, the critics are wrong: not only in a "facts on the ground" way, but also morally. The fact that neither you nor any other critic can offer a rational criticism of their decision *ought* to clue you in that your criticisms don't really have a leg to stand on. But, hell! Surely it's far better -- and more "moral" -- to have NO gasoline at 1.55 (*) than to have SOME (and actually, plenty) at 1.99! (*) "1.55" is just a number I pulled out of the air; I have no idea what you folks imagine is the "morally correct" price of gasoline.
Absolutely correct.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Phannon wrote:
You're comparing apples and oranges, and if you can't see what's wrong with your statement then there's something wrong with you.
Not at all. The *principle* at play is the same in both cases ... and if you cannot see that, then there is something wrong with you.
No, it isn't the same. Companies with already massive profits hiking prices further, compared with a company who can't afford who hire someone at the market rate for a person with those skills/experience. The former is pure greed, see the difference yet?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
Speculation doesn't drive up oil prices.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
Gee - seems like a lot of people disagree with you.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Phannon wrote:
I'm fully aware of "Supply and Demand", but how does this explain other petrol stations keeping their prices relatively in line?
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*? And of what use at all is "keeping their prices relatively in line" (whatever that means) when the first three blokes in line have bought up all the available gas ... even though they didn't need all they bought ... leaving NONE AT ALL for the other twenty behind them?
Ilíon wrote:
What does "keeping their prices relatively in line" even *mean*?
All stations charge roughly the same price at any given time. No one station typically charges a lot more or less. Does that make sense to you? Think about it, why didn't other petrol stations raise their prices? Why did the petrol station in question reduce their prices after a bit of criticism? If they were in the right to do so, why didn't they?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Speculation doesn't drive up oil prices.
It does. Othewise, one can not explain why the price is still rising, even when the current supply is greater than the current demand. But speculation is not the sole or main reason fot the price rise. The dollar losing value is much more important, as is a changing pattern of demands.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"jhwurmbach wrote:
It does.
No it doesn't. It plays no role in commodity price formation. Speculators don't even hold the physical commodity - they trade solely in the futures contract. That's how the CFTC defines speculative activity in their Tuesday reports. Consequently, speculation in the futures market doesn't involve holding the physical and, as such, there is absolutely no reason or mechanism by which speculators can drive up the futures price of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Othewise, one can not explain why the price is still rising, even when the current supply is greater than the current demand.
Yes one can - inventory levels, output production, seasonal demand, excess demand, inflation and macroeconomic factors along with increased holding of the physical for hedging purposes. And not to mention the increased cost of transport due to higher fuel costs.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
Gee - seems like a lot of people disagree with you.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Probably it does, but that's because they don't understand the mechanics of the futures market. See my reply above.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
-
jhwurmbach wrote:
It does.
No it doesn't. It plays no role in commodity price formation. Speculators don't even hold the physical commodity - they trade solely in the futures contract. That's how the CFTC defines speculative activity in their Tuesday reports. Consequently, speculation in the futures market doesn't involve holding the physical and, as such, there is absolutely no reason or mechanism by which speculators can drive up the futures price of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Othewise, one can not explain why the price is still rising, even when the current supply is greater than the current demand.
Yes one can - inventory levels, output production, seasonal demand, excess demand, inflation and macroeconomic factors along with increased holding of the physical for hedging purposes. And not to mention the increased cost of transport due to higher fuel costs.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
The mechanism by which speculators drive the price up (not too much above the current level, lest it would be profitable to buy the physical commodity *now* and store it until the specualtion runs out) is by preventing the price going *down*. Why sould a primary producer sell for low prices on the spotmarket, when he could sell for higher prices in advance? Mind you - the primary producers are also speculating, and try to find the right date when to sale. That speculators do not hold the physical commodity is as irrelevant as day-traders not holding the physical share certificate or bankers not holding the actual dollar notes.
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" -
jhwurmbach wrote:
It does.
No it doesn't. It plays no role in commodity price formation. Speculators don't even hold the physical commodity - they trade solely in the futures contract. That's how the CFTC defines speculative activity in their Tuesday reports. Consequently, speculation in the futures market doesn't involve holding the physical and, as such, there is absolutely no reason or mechanism by which speculators can drive up the futures price of oil.
jhwurmbach wrote:
Othewise, one can not explain why the price is still rising, even when the current supply is greater than the current demand.
Yes one can - inventory levels, output production, seasonal demand, excess demand, inflation and macroeconomic factors along with increased holding of the physical for hedging purposes. And not to mention the increased cost of transport due to higher fuel costs.
I'm the ocean. I'm a giant undertow.
I've heard it explained several times to me on this trip, sometimes in person by people who I respect, why the futures market creates false demand and pushes up prices. They are wrong ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )