The sad thing is that most people forget the one-to-one relationship between
hedgers and speculators
A speculator on speculator cancels itself out
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
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.
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
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.
No, I don't remember that and am skeptical it ever happened. Can you provide
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.
What a joke. It's a carefully edited piece of propaganda where they
excerpt the piece they want from what the person is saying. Let's
look at the first commentator, Cal Thomas. He says "no president has
the power to raise or lower gas prices, those respond to market
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
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
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
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.
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.
Those well permits have nothing to do with Obama and if it were not
his actions they would be higher. Those wells are being drilled in
where we've known for years there was oil, but it wasn't profitable
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
try to defend that in the debates.
Sounds like you're describing yourself. I heard his Sec of Energy,
the truth in front of Congress a couple weeks ago. He said they
to do anything to try to lower gasoline prices. Of course, a couple
he later retracted it, but we know the truth. The only way to force
into all the byzantine new energy sources Obama wants is by driving
price of current energy ever higher. Obama stated that specific to
rates when he was running for office.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
<< 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:
<<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
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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?
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 04:49:58 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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
4% for feedstock and 3-4% for manufacturing.
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
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.
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.