*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

Page 5 of 8  

wrote:

The sad thing is that most people forget the one-to-one relationship between hedgers and speculators A speculator on speculator cancels itself out Why ? Because they are BOTH speculating one against the other The speculator-hedger relationship is the one that is ignored. Both for political and ideological reasons Demonizing the speculator is a waste of time and a cheap attempt to distract from other MORE CRITICAL AND IMPORTANT ISSUES It's not different from people blaming guns for crime. It only helps to distract from the REAL PROBLEMS that are NOT being addressed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Agree with the essence and thrust of your argument. But to be correct, the above part isn't true. There isn't necessarily a one to one relationship between hedgers and speculators. Let's say one new contract is being created by a buyer and seller meeting in the pit. It could be a spec on one side, spec on the other. A spec on one side, hedger on the other. Or it could be a hedger on one side and a hedger on the other side.

That is true. But the libs in their quest to demonize speculators fail to acknowledge that there are also speculators on the short side and their presence tends to push prices LOWER. CBS didn't bring it up. Perhaps it's just that they are too dumb to understand it or too lazy to learn. More likely it's because the real motive is to blame specs and business in general, the facts be damned.

Exactly. When United Airlines comes into the market to hedge it's a good thing that there are specs waiting to take the other side.

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

Good point I missed that

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

you remember back in the previous administration when gasprices were going up, all the experts on FOX news stated that the Shrub as president did NOT have the ability to affect the price of gasoline?
Denying permits? The curent well count is up 350%. In addition, oil production is now HIGHER than it has been since 2000. The US ranks number 3 in the world behind only Ruissia and Saudi Arabia in oil production.
Do your research before echoing non-facts from the right. You must be one of those people who, after hearing something over and over, regardless of its veracity, believe it.
John Carter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Carter wrote:

No, I don't remember that and am skeptical it ever happened. Can you provide a link?

The figures you cite are for private lands. Oil production and exploration are way down on lands controlled by the government, as is government permitting for new refineries and pipelines. In fact, three large refineries in the northeast will be shutting down this summer due to their inability to obtain the right kind of crude at a reasonable price. This inability is the result of insufficient pipelines to provide the right kind of crude.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

-snip-
I can-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o

5 1/2 minutes-- at least 8 hosts. I bailed after 2 minutes]
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What a joke. It's a carefully edited piece of propaganda where they just excerpt the piece they want from what the person is saying. Let's just look at the first commentator, Cal Thomas. He says "no president has the power to raise or lower gas prices, those respond to market forces...." At which point they cut off the rest of what he has to say.
But anyone who knows Cal Thomas and his positions knows that he is in favor of MORE drilling, in ANWR and other federal lands for example. Now if we have more oil, then through MARKET FORCES, the price comes down. Geez, how hard is that to understand?
Then there are others carefully excerpted where they say there is nothing Bush can do about it. Let's go back to the above increased drilling scenario. There was nothing Bush could do about it. He was NOT blocking ANWR, not blocking drilling in the Gulf, not blocking a Keystone pipeline. He was in favor and doing all he could but with the Dems blocking it in Congress there was nothing more he could do. Obama on the other hand, is against those. He's on the phone lobbying Congressman to vote AGAINST the bill to OK the Keystone pipeline right now. Capiche?
But then that carefully crafted piece is from Media Matters, about as radical a left wing outfit as you can find.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Matters did produce it, but there is enough here that it can't be taken out of context).: See the last bit on ANWR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YISHFXMrFs&feature=related

You can't have it both ways.
See O'Reilly: Certainly not abridged in this talking point:

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

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

The bit on ANWR wasn't taken out of context, no. It's one interview with a reporter with US News and World Report where she makes the claim that if ANWR were opened it would only lower the price of crude by 40c to $1.40 a barrel. She got that from some govt source. She also talks about how ANWR only has what would be 4% of our daily consumption. The problem with that is no one knows how much oil there is or isn't in ANWR because the environmentalist won't let anyone even do exploratory drilling to find out. There could be 10X that amount of oil. If anything it shows that Fox is balanced in it's reporting. Even today if you watch O'Reilly he is blaming speculators and the oil companies, not Obama for oil prices. He's been on that rant for weeks now.
The false assumption and cherry picking here is that what MM put together in that little clip isn't a fair representation of all that Fox said on oil prices, what could or could not be done about them. For example, I guarantee you I could go back through tapes and find folks that were on Fox saying ANWR should be open and it would have a significant impact on oil prices. It's funny that speculators are getting much of the blame for driving prices higher, yet we're to believe that specs and the overall market would not react to an announcement that ANWR and other areas were being opened for drilling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload



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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvomrCjnQc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YISHFXMrFs&feature=related

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Those well permits have nothing to do with Obama and if it were not for his actions they would be higher. Those wells are being drilled in areas where we've known for years there was oil, but it wasn't profitable to produce it. With oil at $100, now it is.
Obama blocked drilling in the Gulf and he's blocking it in ANWR. We could have a field the size of Saudi Arabia in ANWR, but he and the Dems won't allow anyone to find out. He's also blocked the Keystone pipeline which would bring us oil from Canada. I can't wait to hear him try to defend that in the debates.

Sounds like you're describing yourself. I heard his Sec of Energy, admitting the truth in front of Congress a couple weeks ago. He said they weren't going to do anything to try to lower gasoline prices. Of course, a couple days later, he later retracted it, but we know the truth. The only way to force America into all the byzantine new energy sources Obama wants is by driving the price of current energy ever higher. Obama stated that specific to electric rates when he was running for office.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Yes, he does. His foreign policies affect oil prices. When Iran feels they can act up,threaten,and get away with it because of a weak America,oil prices climb.When the MidEast is unstable,oil prices climb,and that is due to Comrade Hussein's weak policies.

US oil production is up DESPITE Comrade Hussein's best efforts. it's all on PRIVATE and state lands,because Comrade Hussein has cut off Federal lands.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Who did more to de-stabilize the Mid-East with his cowboy foreign policy? By attacking Iraq and destroying the biggest check on Iran in the area, the Shrub has done irreparable harm to the area's stability. At least this President has had the strength to go after the real criminals and kill them, where as the previous president really gave up on Bin-Laden and said in a news conference "I don't care about him anymore".
Don't even try to imply American weakness under Obama because he fightrs the real enemy and not one he chooses because it is convenient. He's not a playground bully.

And Mr. Young, you need to do some introspection when it comes to Jesus. I doubt Our Lord would have taken such an attitude as you have toward his fellow man.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Iraq was no "check" on Iran. Iran still caused a lot of trouble all around the world. they armed Hezbollah and ruined Lebanon. then they armed HAMAS in Gaza.
Settling Iraq would have put tremendous pressure on Iran,but Comrade Obama gave that away when he refused to give VERBAL support to the Green Revolution occurring in Iran.He sold them out(but supported Revolutions in Libya and Egypt!). Under Comrade Obama,Iraq slid towards Iran. He did nothing to prevent Iranian interference in Iraq,OR Afghanistan,where Iranian IEDs,explosives and arms also kill US soldiers,like they did in Iraq. Comrade Obama turned Iraq from a victory to another Vietnam. In Pakistan,Comrade Obama has alienated them,and turned them against the US.

Did you see Comrade Obama's comments to Russia's President about giving up more missile defense,because of Russian threats? He's begging them for more time,for Russia to wait until after the NOV election...he's SO weak. He gives up stuff and gets NO concessions from Russia or China,or anyone else. He's going to give N.Korea food aid despite their violation of the last agreement. Oh,and he gave Brazil $2 billion USD "so we can buy their oil",but Brazil has decided to sell their oil to China... Iran is building a missile base in Venezuela.
He's also going to continue the Palestinians aid despite the threat he made to cut it off if they went to the UN and applied for recognition as a state. AND despite a LAW prohibiting it.(he's granting a waiver.)
you're kinda clueless. you're falling for the smoke and mirrors.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yep, and won't start now.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
But historically you've never let the facts confuse you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204624204577177092687939480.html

Stormie almost never does. He appears much more interested in letting everyone know how much he hates Obama, whom he often charges with criminal activity without a shred of proof and whom he refers to by insulting names to illustrate his contempt. He complains about how hard Obama has made it for him to make a living, but he spends all his time here in AHR slandering the President instead of working hard to market his business. There's a pattern here.
It doesn't matter that Obama was elected by a majority of Americans. Stormie represents the classic sore loser. He believes, somehow, that because his side lost, the game just had to be fixed. He somehow believes that even though the Republicans lost the 2008 presidential election that the majority voted for Miss "drill, baby, drill" anytime, anywhere Sarah Palin. But they didn't. What's important to Stormie appears to be letting people know of hatred, not having a calm, rational factual discussion.
His behavior makes me wonder if there's a connection between religious belief and the tendency to demonize people. I notice that some people are casting about for *anything* they can use to make Obama into the devil. With the Dow Jones on the rise and employment figures looking up, the best they can do is to attempt to link increased demand for oil across the globe to something Obama's done.
I pity poor Romney if this "gas price" crisis is the best the Republicans have got. I also pity him when political analysts begin to seriously delve into Bain and where Mitt's quarter of a billion bucks came from. It happened like this: employees of Bain-targeted companies were asked to bear more health care costs, give up raises, accept reduced benefits, etc. The money they shaved from employee compensation went into Romney compensation. I don't see very many working people voting for him when the details of that process get thoroughly publicized. If Bain doesn't turn into his bane, his trip to Canada with a terrified diarrhea-stricken dog named Seamus strapped to the roof of his car in an "airtight" carrier or Romneycare will.
http://www.findagraveforums.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number 81780&page=all
<< There are more than 78 million Americans who own one or more dogs - about two out of every five households. A Google search of "Romney Dog on Car Roof" brought me 1,080,000 results. I don't know how many of these 78 million dog owners (and thus, dog lovers) have yet heard or read about Romney doing this horrible thing, much less making his disingenuous claim that Seamus loved the experience on top of a speeding car for 12 hours, while his bowels turned to water.>>
If any president can be blamed for today's skyrocketing oil prices, it's Nixon. He "awakened" China and now their billions of citizens are competing directly against us for every drop of oil. Some of our regular R posters make me laugh when they claim "market forces" will fix everything right up. Apparently someone was doodling when they taught "cartels" in econ 101. They probably missed the part about how DeBeers sets the price of diamonds with very little free market or government interference because they've achieved the closest thing to a perfect monopoly that a modern corporation can. That's the typical end state of a free market economy. A monopolistic economy. Even Republican Teddy Roosevelt realized that when he pushed for "trust busting" laws that have endured to this day.
OPEC can turn off the taps for every extra ounce we pump out, resulting in exactly the same worldwide supply and absolutely no reduction in the price of oil. Oil doesn't rot when you leave it in the ground. Oil is vulnerable to extremes of price speculation and study after study shows that speculation has an enormous effect on prices:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-4707770.html
<<when oil doubled to more than $147 a barrel, no one was more suspicious than Dan Gilligan. As the president of the Petroleum Marketers Association, he represents more than 8,000 retail and wholesale suppliers, everyone from home heating oil companies to gas station owners . . . his members were getting blamed for gouging the public, even though their costs had also gone through the roof. He told Kroft the problem was in the commodities markets, which had been invaded by a new breed of investor.
"Approximately 60 to 70 percent of the oil contracts in the futures markets are now held by speculative entities. Not by companies that need oil, not by the airlines, not by the oil companies. But by investors that are looking to make money from their speculative positions," Gilligan explained . . . In a five year period, Masters said the amount of money institutional investors, hedge funds, and the big Wall Street banks had placed in the commodities markets went from $13 billion to $300 billion. Last year, 27 barrels of crude were being traded every day on the New York Mercantile Exchange for every one barrel of oil that was actually being consumed in the United States.>>
Some people, however, because of an irrational hatred of the President, ironically believe he's somehow able to counter the force of $300B in speculative investments, OPEC, UN sanctions, political unrest in oil producing nations and variations in world supply and demand. Ironically that would make Obama into a Superman. If only he was as powerful as people like Stormie would have us believe.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're wondering? The rest of us look at the muslim nuts and have no doubts.

I bet you didn't notice that when Bush was in office though, did you?

Wow, what a powerful guy. One trip and he practically built all of China. Don't you Dems wish you had a president that wasn't a wuss?

If OPEC is all powerful, tell us what happened in the 1980's when oil was $8 a barrel after Reagan took office and dismantled the libs regulation and anti-business environment.

Yeah, and they can go broke too, unable to continue the cash flow they need to sustain their vast financial committments. Dubai ring a bell?

Yeah, a guy who's the mouthpiece for the gas pumpers of America has real credibility when it comes to finance. I'm gonna go down and ask the local pump boy how the futures market works. What a great "study".
What you fail to grasp is that unlike the airlines, oil companies, etc, those speculators DON'T CONSUME THE OIL. It's not that they sit there and USE 60 to 70% of oil. Some of those 60 to 70% are LONG. Some are SHORT.
In a

You'll see soon enough what happens to the price of oil when Romney is elected. It will start to fall immediately. And you won't have to wait for him to take office. Speculators who know it's headed lower will start to sell even before he's elected. See how great that works?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:49:58 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@toyotamail.com wrote:

Metal or plastics, we toss too much stuff and make too much junk. More of a consumer issue than a materials one.

You raise some good points, but much of what you say is not founded in facts.
Take that lawn chair. No, it is not like 5 or 10 gallons of gas when it burns, and burn it should. Most plastics contain about 18,000 Btu per pound. If not recycled, it is a good fuel in trash to energy plants. It serves a dual purpose that way, better than just taking oil and burning it, with plastics you get an extra use along the way.
You mention Styrofoam insulation. The amount of oil used to produce the insulation is miniscule compared to the amount of fuel it saves over the life of the house it is in. Before condemning its use, I want to see a study of energy used to produce other forms of insulation, such a fiberglass and see what gives us the best deal.
We have to recycle more and what is not recycled should go into a trash to energy plant that produces power while reducing the bulk for landfills. We should optimize our use of crude and make the products that ultimately are most beneficial, be it plastics from oil, or metal that uses oil in the processing.
I also found this: Percent of world oil consumption used for plastics
Percent of world oil consumption used for plastics: Unit: 7-8 Value: percent
Details/Sources 4% for feedstock and 3-4% for manufacturing.
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Plastics.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://woodgatesview.com/2011/08/31/culling-public-education-to-benefit-corporate-interests /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In many places a significant amount of plastic is being recycled today. For example, here in NJ we recycle all plastic soda/water bottles and similar. Most of those wind up being used to make carpet. Some also wind up in outdoor furniture and similar.
As for the reason for using plastics in cars instead of steel, it's because of the need to reduce weight to improve fuel economy. Substitute steel and you'll wind up using more oil for fuel than you save from the oil used to make the plastic.
I also think it's foolish to think getting rid of composite deck materials, siding, etc is going to get us anywhere. These have lifespans many times their wood equivalent and you'd have to look at the full cycle energy usage, labor costs, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.