What a disappointment
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
The price of oil has dropped by $20+ per barrel since Bush rescinded the Whitehouse ban on offshore drilling - the fact that someone in government decided to actually do something has already had an impact. And, yes, consumption has also slackened but the initial drop was within a day or days of the Bush announcement.
How is that not entirely speculation? Or is that the point...? :~
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
How is that not entirely speculation? Or is that the point...?
I'm pretty sure that's Mike's point. The good news is that every hedge fund manager that bet the ranch of the price of oil continuing up from 146 @ barrel, is frantically scrambling for enough cash to cover his markers. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Shog9 wrote:
How is that not entirely speculation? Or is that the point...?
I'm pretty sure that's Mike's point. The good news is that every hedge fund manager that bet the ranch of the price of oil continuing up from 146 @ barrel, is frantically scrambling for enough cash to cover his markers. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The good news is that every hedge fund manager that bet the ranch of the price of oil continuing up from 146 @ barrel, is frantically scrambling for enough cash to cover his markers.
Eh. Huh. Well, someone to toast at tonight's meal of hotdogs & Miller Highlife. :beer:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No... they shouldn't.
I meant that they should when it's a product that has no substitute and affects the whole economy. I don't care if Ferrari charges $200,000 for their cars as long as I can buy a Kia and accomplish the same objective. Unfortunately with gas, we don't have the same choices. It's either $4.17 at this pump or $4.27 at the other. Hurray for the free markets! And if tomorrow they decide to charge us $5.17, hurray for the free markets! :mad:
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Rob Graham wrote:
who would export to us?
Right, that's why Walmart has no suppliers. :rolleyes: You're implying oil companies, which are making a killing off of us, would prefer to make nothing than to make less. Less money is always better than no money. And we're their largest customer. So no, you're wrong. The price of oil would plummet because the oil companies would do what Walmart does to its suppliers.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
No business sells product for less than cost. Refiners have to buy crude at market price. China and india would gladly buy what we won't. Clearly you never took a single course in basic economics, and know absolutely nothing about the subject.
-
What about food? Clothing? Medicine? Electricity? Natural gas? How much power are you willing to give to Uncle Sam?
Mike Mullikin wrote:
What about food? Clothing? Medicine? Electricity? Natural gas? How much power are you willing to give to Uncle Sam?
As much as it takes. Uncle Sam is not some evil alien. It's you and me. Uncle Sam is there too look out for our best interests; that's why we elect "him" and pay his salary. If all the clothing companies got together and decided to charge us $1000 for shorts, $1100 for jeans, $1200 for slacks, and $1300 for dress pants, I would expect Uncle Sam to step in and put a stop to the unethical, uncontrolled greed. It's either that, or "hurray for the free markets!" Take your pick.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
No business sells product for less than cost. Refiners have to buy crude at market price. China and india would gladly buy what we won't. Clearly you never took a single course in basic economics, and know absolutely nothing about the subject.
Rob Graham wrote:
No business sells product for less than cost.
It costs Saudi Arabia $2 to pump out a barrel of oil. That's the cost.
Rob Graham wrote:
China and india would gladly buy what we won't.
At lower prices, right? Since, as you imply, there would be excess supply, prices would drop substancially.
Rob Graham wrote:
Clearly you never took a single course in basic economics, and know absolutely nothing about the subject.
I'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Oakman wrote:
The good news is that every hedge fund manager that bet the ranch of the price of oil continuing up from 146 @ barrel, is frantically scrambling for enough cash to cover his markers.
Eh. Huh. Well, someone to toast at tonight's meal of hotdogs & Miller Highlife. :beer:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
to toast
Oakman got it.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
What about food? Clothing? Medicine? Electricity? Natural gas? How much power are you willing to give to Uncle Sam?
As much as it takes. Uncle Sam is not some evil alien. It's you and me. Uncle Sam is there too look out for our best interests; that's why we elect "him" and pay his salary. If all the clothing companies got together and decided to charge us $1000 for shorts, $1100 for jeans, $1200 for slacks, and $1300 for dress pants, I would expect Uncle Sam to step in and put a stop to the unethical, uncontrolled greed. It's either that, or "hurray for the free markets!" Take your pick.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Obama's solution to energy problems: Under Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax, the government would tax some of the profits from big oil corporations and use it to provide a $1,000 rebate to people struggling with high energy costs.[^] Tax and spend will fix everything... Oh, and while we're at it, lets pump oil out of the strategic reserve to drive down prices (which would require congress to change the law that established the reserve as high costs at the pump don't quite qualify as a trigger for releasing the supply). I'm really tired of politics and polemics instead of actual plans and programs.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm really tired of politics and polemics instead of actual plans and programs.
He's a "liberal" Democrat, that's really all they're capable of. Politicians, in general, gravitate toward showy non-action. But a Democrat, especially when "liberal," is a politician's politician.
-
Christ. Why don't they take oil off the speculative market? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
Why don't they take oil off the speculative market?
It's not a speculative market - it's the futures (i.e. free) market that provides transparent price formation. Speculators aren't the ones driving the price of oil anyways - I've mentioned that several times on here already.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
It's a global commodity, with global speculation. No one country can unilaterally "take it off the speculative market".
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good, especially one that's so tightly bound to its economy. What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon (with annual adjustments for inflation)?
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good,
Not. Communist.
Al Beback wrote:
What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
No business sells product for less than cost.
It costs Saudi Arabia $2 to pump out a barrel of oil. That's the cost.
Rob Graham wrote:
China and india would gladly buy what we won't.
At lower prices, right? Since, as you imply, there would be excess supply, prices would drop substancially.
Rob Graham wrote:
Clearly you never took a single course in basic economics, and know absolutely nothing about the subject.
I'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
Al Beback wrote:
'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
That wasn't opinion, but rather observation of apparent fact. My opinion of you is based on statements like the one I just quoted. To wit: You are an ignorant jackass and not worth arguing with.
-
Great. The Republican solution is to open up more land for drilling and hope the oil companies feel grateful or something. The Democrat solution is to burn off our strategic reserves and when that doesn't work tax the oil co. profits and hope they feel sufficiently chastised or something. If congress owned a puppy, the capitol would smell like piss... :rolleyes:
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Would you prefer we continue to send hundreds of BILLIONS of $$$ to foreign governments, or would it not be preferable to keep the $$$ here in the USA??? Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most? The dollar is becoming worthless as a currency on the world market. There is probably more dollars overseas than we have here in the US!!
John P.
-
Would you prefer we continue to send hundreds of BILLIONS of $$$ to foreign governments, or would it not be preferable to keep the $$$ here in the USA??? Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most? The dollar is becoming worthless as a currency on the world market. There is probably more dollars overseas than we have here in the US!!
John P.
jparken wrote:
Which one do you think benefits the American consumer the most?
Neither one. That, uh, was kinda my point. It's all empty grandstanding. The American Consumer is doing what benefits him already - using less of the expensive fuel. We've managed to shock the market by reducing our consumption. If our Gov't were actually interested in helping out, they'd be working on the mess of subsidies, regulations, and funding programs that directly affect the production and sale of efficient vehicles, alternate fuel sources, etc... But they aren't. The Republicans are worried about hurting domestic auto manufacturers, the Democrats are worried about cooperating with the Republicans in an election year, and both sides are beholden to the oil companies...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You are seriously naive about government, capitalism and economics...
You are seriously trying to avoid responding to my post by attacking me. Let me help you: Hurray for free markets! Down with evil Uncle Sam!
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Al Beback wrote:
Sure, but any country can (and should) place a cap on the price of a consumer good,
Not. Communist.
Al Beback wrote:
What do you think would happen to the price of oil if the US were to pass a law that says that gasoline cannot be sold for more than $3/gallon
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Communist.
:zzz:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
My income would pay? If you're interested in sharing your wisdom on the negative effects of government regulation on corporations, I'm open to it. If you prefer to act like a jackass on top of some high horse, I'll pass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Al Beback wrote:
'm not interested in your opinion of me, so shove it up your ass.
That wasn't opinion, but rather observation of apparent fact. My opinion of you is based on statements like the one I just quoted. To wit: You are an ignorant jackass and not worth arguing with.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Communist.
:zzz:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Your income would pay in order to keep the price low, that's what.
My income would pay? If you're interested in sharing your wisdom on the negative effects of government regulation on corporations, I'm open to it. If you prefer to act like a jackass on top of some high horse, I'll pass.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Please go read up on the price caps in the US in the early 70s, and see what effect they had on the economy. It does not work.
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Please go read up on the price caps in the US in the early 70s, and see what effect they had on the economy.
I've heard of the long lines and the chaos. But it's either wait in a line to fill my tank for $40 or spend twice as much to not wait, and have my food costs go up, my electric bill go up, my travel expenses go up, my heating bills go up, consumer spending go down, unemployment going up, and... when does it end?! When the government steps in, that's when.
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You are seriously naive about government, capitalism and economics...
You are seriously trying to avoid responding to my post by attacking me. Let me help you: Hurray for free markets! Down with evil Uncle Sam!
My latest C# extension method: public static bool In<T>(this T value, params T[] values) { return values.Any(v => v.Equals(value)); } Example: bool valid = answer.In("Yes", "No", "Dunno");