devoish (98.76)

24 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 25, 2012 at 11:13 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Speculation brings the market to its equilibrium price faster.

But staying on topic, Republicans, in general, aren't just wrong. They're evil.

David in Liberty

Report this comment

#2) On June 26, 2012 at 1:09 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

I wouldn't say they are evil.  I just think their agenda applies to satisfying the wealthy and not the bulk of America.

This is problably the first election in my life where I honestly don't like either candidate.

Report this comment

#3) On June 26, 2012 at 2:13 AM, blake303 (29.88) wrote:

"I wouldn't say they are evil. I just think their agenda applies to satisfying the wealthy and not the bulk of America."

That qualifies as evil

Report this comment

#4) On June 26, 2012 at 2:26 AM, blake303 (29.88) wrote:

"This is problably the first election in my life where I honestly don't like either candidate."

Is this your first election? 

Report this comment

#5) On June 26, 2012 at 10:49 AM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

If you want to influence the market price of something, you can either increase supply or decrease demand.   Obama has been an obstacle in encouraging oil production growth due to his policies and proposals of cutting tax breaks for oil projects in desirable U.S. off-shore locations.   He has painted it as a policy that removes subsidies from oil companies that have enough money and profit, but the end result is that oil companies simply don't invest in those projects because they aren't profitable enough.   The U.S. therefore produces less domestic oil, the U.S. employs less people in the oil industry, the U.S. GDP is less, and ultimately, the U.S. also collects less taxes and domestic and foreign oil prices are higher.  

Oil has dropped to 80 because of a decrease in demand due to pre-recession type consumption, coupled with the lack of perceived middle-East supply risk.   It has virtually nothing to do with Obama's policies, which have generally discouraged additional domestic oil production.    He has virtually no power to stop oil speculation, since it is not illegal.  

Report this comment

#6) On June 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM, mtf00l (48.59) wrote:

IMO you can shorten your thesis to "Politicians are evil" :D

Report this comment

#7) On June 26, 2012 at 11:24 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

The truth brings us to three interesting points:

1. Obama has very little to do with gas prices, other than serving as an obstacle to increased production. But any President can (and usually will) do that, regardless of political affiliation. Remember, the first thing Bush wanted to do when he came into office was raise oil prices. War accomplished that just fine.

2.Since speculation mostly moves short term prices, and since the long term trend is generally towards greater production and improved efficiency, then it stands to reason that speculation (both up and down) is mostly centered around monetary policy. And lo and behold, the Fed has drastically slowed money supply growth over the past few months.  Oil speculators are no doubt betting on lower prices going forward (and have been), thus moving us to the equilibrium price faster.

3. Finally, and most amusingly, Republicans trying to gain the seat of power in the Executive Branch should be rooting for lower gas prices. Although gas tends to dominate the headlines, higher prices would be indicative of looser monetary policy, and that would lead to a neat little inflationary bubble heading into the 2012 election that might ride Obama to re-election.  Lower prices are reflecting the slowdown that is the result of fiscal tightening from the Fed and seriously damage Obama's re-election chance.  I leave it to the voters here, whether a change in regime would really matter anyway.

David in Liberty

Report this comment

#8) On June 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, mdk0611 (57.66) wrote:

All president's get full credit or blame for the price of gas and many other things (i.e. the economy).  In reality, no president has that degree of control, as factors beyond government and beyond our shores have an influence.   However, when seen as advantageous, both parties assert that level of influence exists. 

In addtion to the reasons given by JaysRage for the decline in oil prices, add to them the fact that the Saudi's are continuing to produce flat out  and that supply from private lands in North Dakota and other domestic fields has increased.   

Report this comment

#9) On June 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM, JohnCLeven (83.47) wrote:

I think evil may be a stretch.

Republicans tend to support an "everyman for himself" agenda. They generally believe that most poor people are poor bc they made mistakes in their life or made bad decisions that resulted in poverty. This agenda, ofcourse, does not take into acct people who are poor bc of factors and forces outside of their control (which tends to be the way most Dems view the poor, as victims) The truth is probably somewhere in between.

So in the republicans ideal system, the poor are get what they deserve for their mistakes or bad luck and the rich also get what they deserve based on their intelligence/achievement. The problem is many poor people are poor for unfair/unfortunate reasons (born into poverty, etc) and many rich are rich for unfair/unfortunate reasons (inheritance, etc) The Dems want to help people. (while, as a side effect, paying for those who are legitamately poor for their own foolish behaviors by taking money from (some of) those who actually worked for it) and the Republicans would rather people help themselves. 

Darwinian? Yes. Evil? Depends on your opinion, I guess.

 

Report this comment

#10) On June 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM, NeuroNerd (< 20) wrote:

JaysRage:

 In case you hadn't noticed, US oil production has increased and imports have decreased dramatically under Obama's watch.  And at least some of the policy decisions his administration actually does have control over, such as slowing construction of Keystone XL, are likely HOLDING DOWN US oil prices by making it harder for crude to be exported away from the continent (despite the protestations of the project's sponsors to the contrary, oil that makes it down to the Gulf coast for refinement would likely be outward bound, given the persistent price differentials between WTI and overseas crude benchmarks).

 

Report this comment

#11) On June 26, 2012 at 12:03 PM, EnigmaDude (97.23) wrote:

Gas prices and oil prices are two different things.  Yes, gas prices are affected by the price of crude, but there are other factors involved.  Can't believe nobody has noted that distinction in the comments thus far.  And one month is not enough time lag to see the impacts of lower crude oil prices on the price of gas at the pump.  I predict the average price of a gallon of gas will be closer to $3 than $4 by November. (which will undoubtedly hurt the Republicans more than it will help)

Report this comment

#12) On June 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM, EnigmaDude (97.23) wrote:

Here is a good place to see a chart of the trends in gas and oil prices:

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Report this comment

#13) On June 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

NeuroNerd -- In case you haven't noticed, it takes longer than three years to put productive wells together.   Giving Obama credit for current oil production is laughable.   Keystone is irrelevent.  Not only wasn't it going to finish in the Obama administration's 4-year tenure, but the economic effects wouldn't be felt for even longer.    I'm talking about opening up drilling and tax exemptions, I'm not talking about Canadian oil pipelines, because that is.....ultimately....Canadian oil.  

The concerns about Keystone are valid.   While building and maintaining the pipeline would create American jobs, it is clear that U.S interests are not front and center.   It's all about Canadian profitability, especially when you consider that the target landing zone for the pipeline is a tax free zone.   From my perspective, I see no reason why the U.S. should share in the wealth created from opening up Canadian oil to export.....enough to subsidize Midwest gas prices and some left over.    

That said, Obama didn't make a decision.  He basically punted on the whole issue to avoid having to make a hard decision before an election.    

Report this comment

#14) On June 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

See no reason why the U.S. shouldn't share....

 

Report this comment

#15) On June 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, G8BigBoom (69.10) wrote:

 

Today the republicans are blocking the process, tomorrow the democrats will be the blockers, and the American people will continue to vote for them both.  So who is really the idiots?

 

 

 

Report this comment

#16) On June 26, 2012 at 2:58 PM, leohaas (93.62) wrote:

OK, my fingers are itching, even though this has little to do with investing...

My 2 cents anyway.

If Obama were to blame for the run up in gasoline prices, then he must also be credited for lowering them. I personnally think both are hogwash. Our President is powerful, but not that powerful. Short of starting a new war in an important oil producing area (which Congress would need to authorize, btw), I don't see any way he can significantly influence the price of oil.

Devo: read up on price elasticity before translating a price change of 20% in a month into "Real oil supply and denmand changed 20% in one month". You are making some excellent points but devalue your argument by including this line.

Report this comment

#17) On June 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

From the bottom up, easiest first, the neverending battle last.

leohaas,

I agree with you 100%, including putting a question mark at the end of the sentence you copied, intending to cast doubt on the idea that supply and demand changed 20% in one month and make the case for speculation costing us .50 cents per gallon.

 jaysrage,

I agree that giving Obama credit is laughable. I disagree that opening our land to production matters to this price change in the price of oil/gas energy. 

enigmadude, #11,

I agree. It is sopeculation, not supply.

neuronerd,

I agree that Jaysrage is missing the nuance andthe  reality of US production.

JohnCLeven,

in general, yes.

 mdk0611,

I am glad to see that you know that US oil production under Obama has increased. It is one reason he has likely lost my vote.

 Blake303   #4,

That was  the best possible reply.

Awallejr #2,

I  find myself closer to David on this one. Evil. But like any other organisation with so many people there is the evil, and many more who are just stupid an would be better off with the Democrats giving them money than the Republicans taking it.

David, #1,

Both comments were on topic. " Speculation brings the market to its equilibrium price faster."  It also throws it out of equilibrium faster as we have seen.

David #7,

 1. Obama has very little to do with gas prices, other than serving as an obstacle to increased production. But any President can (and usually will) do that, regardless of political affiliation.  That is representative Democracy. Most Americans seek an alternative to oil and its pollution. The republicans have gone to the cash thinking it will win them an election. We shall see.

 Remember, the first thing Bush wanted to do when he came into office was raise oil prices. War accomplished that just fine. He was an oil man with oil buddies, good for him and his friends.

 2.Since speculation mostly moves short term prices, and since the long term trend is generally towards greater production and improved efficiency, then it stands to reason that speculation (both up and down) is mostly centered around monetary policy. And lo and behold, the Fed has drastically slowed money supply growth over the past few months.  Oil speculators are no doubt betting on lower prices going forward (and have been), thus moving us to the equilibrium price faster. 

That does not stand to reason at all. It stands to reason that improved fuel economy has reduced demand, beginning with the MPG increase required to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers. It stands to reason that energy competition from renewables is putting a cap on prices. It stands to reason the competition from Nat gas is holding down prices. It stands to reason that a threat to raise the cost of speculating has reduced speculation. It really does not stand to reason that speculation is centered around monetary policy. It does stand to reason that you would sell your political agenda.

3. Finally, and most amusingly, Republicans trying to gain the seat of power in the Executive Branch should be rooting for lower gas prices. Although gas tends to dominate the headlines, higher prices would be indicative of looser monetary policy, and that would lead to a neat little inflationary bubble heading into the 2012 election that might ride Obama to re-election.  Lower prices are reflecting the slowdown that is the result of fiscal tightening from the Fed and seriously damage Obama's re-election chance.  I leave it to the voters here, whether a change in regime would really matter anyway. 

I leave it to the voters to recognise a political agenda when they see it. 

 Thank you all for the replies,

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment

#18) On June 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

From the bottom up, easiest first, the neverending battle last.

leohaas,

I agree with you 100%, including putting a question mark at the end of the sentence you copied, intending to cast doubt on the idea that supply and demand changed 20% in one month and make the case for speculation costing us .50 cents per gallon.

 jaysrage,

I agree that giving Obama credit is laughable. I disagree that opening our land to production matters to this price change in the price of oil/gas energy. 

enigmadude, #11,

I agree. It is sopeculation, not supply.

neuronerd,

I agree that Jaysrage is missing the nuance andthe  reality of US production.

JohnCLeven,

in general, yes.

 mdk0611,

I am glad to see that you know that US oil production under Obama has increased. It is one reason he has likely lost my vote.

 Blake303   #4,

That was  the best possible reply.

Awallejr #2,

I  find myself closer to David on this one. Evil. But like any other organisation with so many people there is the evil, and many more who are just stupid an would be better off with the Democrats giving them money than the Republicans taking it.

David, #1,

Both comments were on topic. " Speculation brings the market to its equilibrium price faster."  It also throws it out of equilibrium faster as we have seen.

David #7,

 1. Obama has very little to do with gas prices, other than serving as an obstacle to increased production. But any President can (and usually will) do that, regardless of political affiliation.  That is representative Democracy. Most Americans seek an alternative to oil and its pollution. The republicans have gone to the cash thinking it will win them an election. We shall see.

 Remember, the first thing Bush wanted to do when he came into office was raise oil prices. War accomplished that just fine. He was an oil man with oil buddies, good for him and his friends.

 2.Since speculation mostly moves short term prices, and since the long term trend is generally towards greater production and improved efficiency, then it stands to reason that speculation (both up and down) is mostly centered around monetary policy. And lo and behold, the Fed has drastically slowed money supply growth over the past few months.  Oil speculators are no doubt betting on lower prices going forward (and have been), thus moving us to the equilibrium price faster. 

That does not stand to reason at all. It stands to reason that improved fuel economy has reduced demand, beginning with the MPG increase required to take advantage of Cash for Clunkers. It stands to reason that energy competition from renewables is putting a cap on prices. It stands to reason the competition from Nat gas is holding down prices. It stands to reason that a threat to raise the cost of speculating has reduced speculation. It really does not stand to reason that speculation is centered around monetary policy. It does stand to reason that you would sell your political agenda.

3. Finally, and most amusingly, Republicans trying to gain the seat of power in the Executive Branch should be rooting for lower gas prices. Although gas tends to dominate the headlines, higher prices would be indicative of looser monetary policy, and that would lead to a neat little inflationary bubble heading into the 2012 election that might ride Obama to re-election.  Lower prices are reflecting the slowdown that is the result of fiscal tightening from the Fed and seriously damage Obama's re-election chance.  I leave it to the voters here, whether a change in regime would really matter anyway. 

I leave it to the voters to recognise a political agenda when they see it. 

 Thank you all for the replies,

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment

#19) On June 26, 2012 at 6:49 PM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

I consider my agenda to be anti-political. But if there's one thing I know, you will decide what I think no matter what I say.

David in Liberty

Report this comment

#20) On June 27, 2012 at 7:38 AM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

I consider my agenda to be anti-political. But if there's one thing I know, you will decide what I think no matter what I say. - David who found Liberty in the USA

Is that wrong of me? A car salesman once told me a junker was in great shape, I decided he thought it was ok to lie to me for personal gain so I said so.

You made the absolutely ridiculous political assertions in #7, bullet point 3,

Here's your bullet point 2

2.Since speculation mostly moves short term prices, and since the long term trend is generally towards greater production and improved efficiency, then it stands to reason that speculation (both up and down) is mostly centered around monetary policy. 

 I could also have taken the time to respond to the portion of this sentence that is off the topic of short term speculation and its cost to every US consumer of fuel. "and since the long term trend is generally towards greater production and improved efficiency"  Improved efficiency no longer makes up for the increased difficulty of extracting oil. Without Government support through wars, land grabs,and support for dumping its waste onto other people woods, waters and air, the fossil fuel industry would be in decline vs renewable energy. That is not efficient, that is extraction. And in large part that is the fault of political hacks like you campaigning against the freedom of representative Democracy and persuading a population to prevent Government policy that helps the majority of Americans, such as SSI, medicare for all, pollution controls. Anti Government campaigning which opened the door for corruption in favor of a minority of about 10% of us, mostly at the expense of someone elses children.

And yes David, fighting against those things is just as much politics as fighting for them. The difference is who benefits when it is all done. 300,000,000 Americans with the shared self interest of clean water, healthcare and SSI, or a favored few in an ownership society, favored at the expense of the rest.

Unless of course, you have an example of a different result from the politics you propose.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment

#21) On June 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, JaysRage (94.10) wrote:

I am in full agreement that reluctance to tax-incent drilling has had any real affect on current gas prices, with the slight caveat that drilling in U.S territories creates jobs and consumes manufactured goods and requires services.   Creating jobs creates spending.   Increased spending improves the economy and COULD have the affect of moving the needle on the economy, DEPENDING on the level of change in philosophy by the administration.....thereby increasing gas prices in the short term, but also decreasing unemployment and increasing tax revenue and increasing the overall wealth of the country.  

Any supply related downward pressure on gas prices would be on future gas prices.   

Report this comment

#22) On June 27, 2012 at 9:51 AM, whereaminow (73.77) wrote:

Steven,

That was a really round about way to say that you're an a**.  I don't thnk anyone here needed all that, but maybe someone appreciates it.

Your reputation here speaks for itself. No one listens to you. No one really cares what you think. No one has ever been inspired by the "philosophy of devoish" LOL

I'll just leave it at that.

David in Liberty

Report this comment

#23) On June 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM, devoish (98.76) wrote:

I'll just leave it at that. - David at Liberty in the USA

Just leave.  Come back when you find somewhere your solutions are actually working.

Best wishes,

Steven 

Report this comment

#24) On June 28, 2012 at 1:58 AM, awallejr (80.10) wrote:

OK Steven and David, stop it now.  You both march to the beat of a different drummer.  That doesn't make you right or wrong.  It simply makes you different.  And in the end "difference" makes for variety and there is nothing wrong with variety as long as you don't hurt innocent people.

Report this comment

Blog Archive

2013

May (1) March (2)

2012

December (1) November (1) July (3) June (8) May (2) April (2) March (1) February (7) January (2)

2011

December (3) November (4) October (8) September (9) August (13) July (4) June (4) May (5) April (12) March (11) February (9) January (4)

2010

December (2) November (9) October (5) September (5) August (9) July (5) June (4) May (2) April (4) March (7) February (11) January (11)

2009

December (11) November (15) October (29) September (10) August (18) July (14) June (13) May (21) April (12) March (8) February (6) January (5)

2008

December (20) November (14) October (15) September (31) August (10) July (1) June (12) May (7) April (7) March (16) February (5) January (1)

2007

December (3) November (3) October (6) September (6) August (6) July (4) June (2) May (6) April (10) March (5) January (3)

2006

December (1)