*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

" snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

LOL! To "treat" problems similar to that, when I take a shower, I sniff the hot water up my nose and then blow. Gets "stuff" out, and relieves some of the problems. Also gargling with Listerine-type stuff seems to help in reducing nasal runoff into my throat.

Son-in-law had a bad cough etc a few weeks ago that developed into strep, with high(ish) fever. First antibiotic didn't help. Second did, but he was out more than a full week. He said he hadn't been this sick in all his life. Remember that if an antibiotic is going to work, it should do so within about 24 hours. If it isn't go back to a doctor.

Reply to
Han
Loading thread data ...

I havn't given it a lot of research, but isn't that Mormon with the great hair a Maassaachussetts liberal, who tried to push Romney Care, in the liberal state of Mass?

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Maybe. It looks like 2012 will be a Mormon with great hair vs. a man with a burr cut.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

Maybe we should have sent out bank account number, so that the deposed king could send the L4,000,000 pounds that he was trying to get out of Nigeria? I remember getting the email.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

Yep, there was a spike in July of 2008, caused by the threatened oil shutdown in Nigera (our 3rd largest foreign oil supplier). Three months later, the price of gas had fallen to $1.61/gallon.

Shortly thereafter, the new administration has presided over a steady climb in the price of gasoline.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

I've spoken to ear, nose and throat specialists telling them about my vacuum cleaner trick and they've told me that they have vacuum tubes that they use to clear clogged sinuses which are inserted into the nose of a patient. There are YouTube videos showing the procedure. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

Interesting... shower head as netti pot (grin)

>
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

I snort water from the shower head too, it does help. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

Hedging and gambling, right?

No, I didn't know that, and perhaps it's a good thing, right?

You're right, it isn't simple, but you do know that false rumors have affected the price of oil, right? Such as the false claim that there was an explosion/breach of a Saudi pipeline recently?

Right.

Reply to
Han

"HeyBub" wrote in news:reKdnXQXc5XyT_bSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Personally, I have nothing against any Mormon, certainly not this one. If only I could get a notion of what he really believes and how he will be able to (important caveat) affect Congress. But then, even more exciting than the presidential race is the outcome of the congressional races ...

Reply to
Han

Well, put that on the list.

1) WD-40 2) Duct tape 3) Shop Vac

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

formatting link
.

I've spoken to ear, nose and throat specialists telling them about my vacuum cleaner trick and they've told me that they have vacuum tubes that they use to clear clogged sinuses which are inserted into the nose of a patient. There are YouTube videos showing the procedure. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

snipped-for-privacy@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

Which doesn't address the core issue, which is evidence to support the claim being made that it's speculators that are keeping up the price of oil.

It also goes directly against the theory that speculators are deliberately manipulating the oil futures market. Here's the data from the latest CFTC report from Mar 6:

Long # % Short # %

Producers/Users 256,000 51 16

330,000 52 21

Swap Dealers 125,000 17 8

324,000 29 20

Managed Money 255,000 85 16

46,000 32 3

Others req to report 141,000 60 9

114,000 47 7 eg large specs

Total contracts outstanding is 1,580,000 which represents about

20 days worth of worldwide production.

Long/Short is the number of contracts currently held

# is the number of traders reporting in that position category

% is the percentage of all the contracts outstanding that category represents

You tell me how from any of that you can deduce that speculators are what is driving the price of oil.

So, what? False rumors have been knows to effect the price of all kinds of things.

Reply to
trader4

te:

You are about the dumbest shit on usenet. You make Sarah Palin look smart. So even tho gas was more expensive during the Bush administration, Bush didn't want high gas prices because he didn't "say" he wanted high gas prices and forget the fact he got a lot of support from his friends in the oil business.

Crawl back in your hole, dumbass.

-C-

Reply to
Country

snipped-for-privacy@r27g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:

Unfortunately your definiton of speculating is not consistent with any accepted definition. Neither the common usage nor the usage as defined in the futures markets require that a speculator have any inside information. Perhaps that's where you've gone wrong.

A speculator as pertinent to this discussion is simply someone who takes a position in the futures market on the belief that the market is going to move one way or the other so that they can profit. A hedger is someone that enters the futures market to offset a risk they have in their business or financial interest.

Examples:

George thinks the price of soybeans is headed higher and wants to profit from it. He goes long 5 November futures contracts, covering 25,000 bushels.

Stan, a farmer in Illinois, is happy with the current price of soybeans and doesn't want to risk it going down before he harvests and sells his crop. He sells 5 Novemeber futures contracts.

Stan, the hedger has just transferred the risk to George, the speculator. Nothing at all to do with inside information, market manipulation or anything sinister.

Sure there is nervousness. If it's nervousness that's a problem, then we might as well just shut down all the worlds finanacial markets.

The obvious problem with the nervousness makes oil go up theory is there are speculators and hedgers on BOTH sides of the market. There are speculators long and speculators short. So, for this "nervousness" to translate into marching prices up, somehow the ones on the long side would have to be doing one hell of a lot better job than the ones on the short side. And while the prices are being worked up through nervousness, the hedgers, ie oil producers, would have to decide not to take advantage of those prices going higher, ie they would have to sit on their hands instead of profitting by selling into the increased prices that they as producers should know are not real and sustainable. Instead, if at least some of them behave rationally, then as the prices try to move higher, they have difficulty doing so because the oil producers sell into the rally. You;d have speculators buying and the oil producers, the really smart money giving them all they want until they choke.

That was the whole point. lol

Actually, wrapping screwed it all up. If you want, here's the CFTC Committment of Traders Report that shows the positions in all the futures markets held by anyone that has more than the reporting limit in number of contracts.

formatting link

Light sweet crude is the oil contract of interest.

Reply to
trader4

If you put water, hot or cold, up your nose you can die from an aquatic amoeba that eats your brain.

"(CNN) -- It's eerie but it's true: Three people have died this summer after suffering rare infections from a waterborne amoeba that destroys the brain. "

formatting link

Reply to
HeyBub

That's *hilarious*, coming from you.

You make Sarah Palin look smart.

I bet you think I make her look cute, too, big fella. But hold your weenie, moron, I'm married.

Now, go back and read the conversation, moron.

Only an illiterate leftist moron would try this argument.

Reply to
krw

You've gotten Trader to admit that there has to be regulation on free markets to prevent people from doing serious economic harm. Bravo, Han. (-:

The numbers speak volumes about how different the current oil market is from

8 or 10 years ago:

source:

formatting link
Twenty-seven speculative transactions for every barrel of oil actually consumed. Two thousand years ago the Romans realized the dangers of speculation in "lifeline" commodities and made certain attempts to rig market prices of grain punishable by death. In their time, the most important commodity was bread. In ours, it's oil.

Reply to
Robert Green

<
formatting link
>

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.

formatting link

Reply to
Robert Green

Since oil is fungible and a world-wide market, this is a bogus stat. The REALLY interesting one would how many are traded worldwide versus how many are use worldwide.

>
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:HsednRKmoOIBI_DSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

I had to look up fungible, and I'm not sure I fully understand anything more than a version of "easily substituted". Statistics are always suspect, since we usually don't know all the premises and limitations to the calculations. But bogus is too strong a word, IMO.

Nevertheless, since the US share of the world oil market is in the order of 25%, substantially more than the ~4% as the 27-fold multiple of trades over uses of 1 barrel suggests, the much repeated selling of that same barrel of oil seems excessive. In the aggregate and on average such trading cannot possibly reduce the average price of oil, since every trade costs something.

So, yes the trading functions a bit to hedge and keep the prices in a free market range, but that range is increased by the speculation.

Reply to
Han

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

And your definitive proof for that would be? Crickets. Have you ever traded a single futures contract? I can just as easily make a case that speculation decreases the range. Again, there are speculators ON BOTH SIDES, LONG and SHORT. You raised the example of rumors moving the market. Let's say oil was at $100 and some rumor starts moving it to $103. There are speculators that have been around for decades. They know that most of these rumors are just that, rumors. So, seeing it move up $3, they now have an opportunity to short it, expecting it to move back down. Later in the day, the price settles back to $102 and the speculator covers the short, taking his profit. That action lessens the price move. It's also what a huge amount of that volume is all about.

Regarding daily volume in futures, you've got it all wrong. First, the CBS comparison of futures volume versus US usage, as Kurt pointed out, is totally bogus. Oil is a worldwide market, people use oil all over the world. Participants in the US futures market are all over the world and they will continue to be, unless we let you drive them out. In which case, the business will just move to a more friendly country where perhaps it will be less regulated. How would you like that?

If you compare the futures volume to worldwide production, about a weeks worth of contracts change hands each day. So, for CBS, the correct ratio is not 27:1 but more like 7:1. Now it's kind of odd that someone who AFAIK has never traded a single futures contract of any kind would know what the "right" volume should be. But tell us, what is the right number from your magic ball?

What you have backwards here is that volume is a bad thing. It's a very good thing that leads to efficient pricing and liquidity. Let's say you need to sell 1000 shares of a stock first thing Monday morning. Which market would you rather that stock be in? The pink sheets of stocks where if you're lucky, they might trade a few thousand shares a day? Or would you want it to be one of the NASDAQ stocks where they do millions of shares a day? In the latter case, you could enter a market order, have it filled in a second at a fair price. Try that in the other market and see what happens. The more activity you have in a trading environment, the better.

Reply to
trader4

" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@h5g2000vbx.googlegroups.com:

I am focusing on the example you give above. The rumor that ups the price to $103, the speculator shorting it, and then the price falling back to $102, from the initial $100. Seems to me there is a net increase in this example and also a cost of trading. Or is all that trading back and forth free? It may be a small amount, but there is a cost, and it all adds up. Maybe that is why the price always goes up fast, and comes down slow.

And you're right, I am leery of sticking my neck out and going into futures. So I know nothing about it ...

Reply to
Han

HomeOwnersHub website 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.