Fuel exports

Page 2 of 3  

-snip-

Fact check-- it was 4% in 2000. It never got that low again on his watch. It was closer to 6 and rising fast when he turned things over.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Elbrecht wrote:

You are partially correct. The unemployment rate was 4.00% when Bush took office. It stayed in the 4-5% range throughout 2000 until October 2001 when it hit 5.3%. The unemployment rate stayed in the 5-6+% range until August of '05 when it dropped again below 5%. There it stayed until the minimum wage was raised in July of '08. From there, it started a steady climb, peaking at 10.10% in October of 2010.
Still, the average unemployment throughout the Bush years was in the neighborhood of 5%. The average for the Obama years has been almost twice that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

I blame it on the "New Deal" of the (Franklin) Roosevelt administration, with a little bit a residual from Grover Cleveland.

"First, do no harm". Sometimes that's the best you can do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good God, you're stupid!

Idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Logically, the worse the economy, the less fuel it will use, and the less it will contribute to global warming.
After all, global warming wasn't viewed as a big problem a hundred years ago, when U.S. GDP was a fraction of what it is now.
-- Steven L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It wasn't viewed as a big problem twenty years ago when the economy was booming, either. CO2 emissions (I know, who cares?) and energy usage now are lower, per dollar GDP, than ever. That's progress in anyone, except the loony left's, book.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I havn't got the link on the tip of my fingers, but carbon follows the climate change, not causes it.
Carbon emissions doesn't necessarily cause global warming. But, crappy economy causes misery and poorness.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Logically, the worse the economy, the less fuel it will use, and the less it will contribute to global warming.
After all, global warming wasn't viewed as a big problem a hundred years ago, when U.S. GDP was a fraction of what it is now.
-- Steven L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

oh and don't forget the new refinery that would have to be built because there isn't enough surplus refinery capacity to handle, but wait, we'll just export the oil so there would be no net gain to the economy (in the long term)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

You're probably right. It takes a few years to build a refinery, but work should begin about the same time as they start digging on the pipeline. Unless, of course, the EPA intervenes and mandates that the new refinery be built entirely from recycled beer cans and constructed by midgets. Fortunately, when the pipeline terminates on the Gulf coast, there won't be any onerous state restrictions; Texas and Louisiana know what works and what doesn't in the oil bidness.
And exporting the refined product is a plus. Look how well-off Saudi Arabia is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Oil, and oil products, are fungible.
Producing more lowers the price world-wide and that simultaneously lowers the price here. That's true for gasoline or any product made from oil.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The demand curve isn't close to being 1:1, either. Increasing the oil in the market 10% will lower the price much more than 10%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, you really, really, are that stupid.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

To an oil company, price is irrelevant. What counts is profit. Every, and I do mean EVERY, economic study of products made from oil, mostly gasoline and heating oil, show that profit is inversely proportional to price. That is, the lower the price, the more profit.
The great arch-villian, John D. Rockefeller, drove down the price of Kerosene from $3.00/gallon to five cents (in three years) and became rich as a result.
Obviously, there's no profit if the oil company sells gasoline below the cost to produce, but numerous studies prove that the closer oil companies get to the production cost, the greater their profit. Hence, upward prices reflect, not the desire to make more profit, but instead the increased cost of production.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

oh come now, except for the price of oil there are no increases in the cost of production. also this does not reflect the fact that prices rise faster than they fall giving the same thing for oil cost
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

A. The price of crude is the largest contributor to the price of the finished product.
B. "Rocket up, feather down" applies only at the retail level. Finished product price at the refinery is almost instantaneous with the cost of crude. At the retail level, consider the gas station operator:
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

if bush had worried about what wall street and the banks were doing to the economy say five years ago, things would not only be much different for the blue collar worker, they would be better for everyone
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

He did. Five times legislation was introduced to oversee banking and investment. All failed due to Democratic opposition.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This largely BS. Most of the worst stuff was made possible because of laws passed by multiple (mostly Dem controlled) Congresses, although to be fair, most of the laws were passed with massive bipartisan majorities (for instance Glass Stegal repeal was passed by a voice vote in the Senate and low double digits no votes in the House.) BTW: Did I mention that Clinton signed this bill?
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The one way that *both* the Dems and the GOP screwed up, was they elevated homeownership to the American Holy Grail--without ever wondering what type of Americans should own homes. (Remember Bush's "ownership society"?)
We've now learned the hard way that not every American can or should own a home, especially not with an adjustable-rate mortgage: If they're irresponsible or unable to put down a sizable down payment or keep their income ahead of rising interest rates, they ought to just rent an apartment.
-- Steven L.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bush *also* wanted to clamp down on the crazy lending rules. Tell the whole story.

My first down was less than 5% (more like 1%, but I don't remember the details). The first year was a little scary (Carter's 14% interest rates) but I was never in "trouble", certainly not because of the down.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.