I do remember the odd even license plate thing. Two
dollars max purchase and waiting forever in line.
That was totally no fun.
Brought to you by a Democrat admin. I'm pleased
we reduced the number of Democrats, and moved
towards "drill, baby, drill" in the USA.
yes that was it and totally unnecessary. All contrived to make the
citizens 'feel' involved.
Wish I could remember what year, but three experts in oil were called upon
to estimate the amount of oil in the known oil reserves around the world.
Their first estimates came up in the range of 200 years AT THE PRESENT
RATE OF CONSUMPTION! The oil industry said, you overestimated do it again.
So they went back, and still too large, and tried and tried their MOST
conservative estimates to get it down to like 60 yeears at present rate of
consumption. [remember this is KNOWN oil reserves, not the newly
How did I hear about it? I watched them being interviewed on a multitude
of TV News shows discussing what they were going through and being
subjected to. To add insult to injury, their published findings actully
were distributed around to the US Library system. Only to have their book
regarding all their facts, and how they did their estimates [a pretty good
scientific piece of work] pulled back out of distribution. That's right,
recalled form our libraries and disposed of.
I couldn't figure out why, until I examined the tax structure for oil.
There is a very profitable 'depletion' allowance', meaning the resource is
dwindling so all the investors get a write off. Of course that write off
would come into question *if* there was too much oil. Interestingly, the
write-off is only good to offset other reevenues, which translates to if
you're rich, you get to take it off something else. I know. At one time I
owned an interest in an oil well and was amazed that the oil well 'lost'
around $200 cash flow per month, BUT offset other income up to $3,000 per
month. So any rich person owning a well came out ahead. It's all in that
wonky corporate math.
At first I didn't believe removing publications was doable in the US,
until I watched a chemist asking for ex plosive formula reference book
that he knew was pulled from the library system and some kind person found
the book in an Italian library [US publication] and sent it to him.
OPEC has set the price of oil <with small and short exception> for the
last 4 decades. We have never had enough production to do so.
I'm not sure how us selling oil at 60-70 dollars a barrel equates to a
'real war'. I'd be more than glad to see the economy of the middle east
and Venezuela tank and hopefully take down their governments. We've
survived wars, the Bush family, the Obamas and economic disaster before.
I'd rather take my chances with a 'broke Iran' than an Iran bleeding
money. What do you think did the Soviets in? Their ideology didn't
just suddenly change during the Reagan years... we bled them dry
(financially) while they tried to keep up with our military. Where do you
think the huge majority of money comes from that supply the terrorists
with their weapons? Screw the middle east, screw Putin and Maduro as
On Thursday, November 6, 2014 8:55:28 PM UTC-5, 83LowRider wrote:
You really need to check the definition of never. In the beginning, there
was no OPEC and the USA was the only production. And for decades after
that the USA still dominated the market, was the largest producer and could influence the price.
Yeah, that's a great idea. Take down more govts of peaceful, stable
Arab countries in the Middle East. How well has that worked in the places
it's happened so far?
The essential differences here are that the USSR was indeed the evil empire,
out to conquer the world and impose communism on us all if they could and
the Reagan military buildup specifically targeted them. I
don't see that kind of threat from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. As far as
financing terrorism, it takes so little money to do that, whether oil is
at $50 or $125 hardly matters. It would be nice to screw Iran, but starting
some economic war with oil, that you can't direct at any one country, doesn't
seem practical. And the price war would just screw the new US producers
that have invested billions to develop oil here. Govts screwing with free
markets rarely produces positive results.
Nope, 1986 when oil was down to $12 a barrel:
Exxon saw the trend and shut down their west Colorado operation May 2, 1982.
It's still called Black Sunday in western Colorado. Texas and Louisiana made
it a little further, but when the glut hit it took down the producers and
the banks that were holding the paper. I remember driving along the coastal
part of Lousiana and seeing offshore rigs that you could buy for the scrap
Cheap oil was good for some people but it sucked if you were in an energy
has a good overview of the Reagan years. The financial people did very well,
much like now, the middle class income stayed flat. Eventually the buzz wore
off and it became "It's the economy, stupid!" again.
I have no interest in going back to the days of John Rockefeller
and clearly stated "last 4 decades".
The oil embargo of the 70's pretty much proves my point.
What we have underground does not equate to us being able
to set prices. When it cost more to get it above-ground than
it sells for, we shut off the spigot. The only reason fracking
became to be so popular was that the cost of a barrel was
so high, it became a profitable operation to go after it.
First, there are very few "peaceful, stable" countries in the
ME. They are all 'oil rich' enough to weather oil at 50-70 bucks
a barrel. It may impede their building the worlds newest/tallest
skyscraper or their latest manmade islands... but they won't starve.
Secondly, look at the populations of those countries we're speaking
of. Russia has 'fallen' before and they came out of it. The peoples
of Venezuela would almost certainly welcome a regime change.
China is 4th in production... a 'peaceful stable' country? You think
we'll every hurt their economy to match what they've done to ours?
Would oil at $50 wreck them? I think not.
I see little difference between China and Russia. Sorry.
And I don't give much of a damn about either one of those
shitholes either. Forget what kind of threat they may pose
and try and remember what their gov'ts stand for... killin' gays,
stoning women, complete lack of womens rights, etc.
It most certainly does matter. The billions Iran has spent on
their nuclear capabilities matters... the rockets sent over
Israeli borders matter. Are you that blind?
Oh my... the richest of our rich will take a hit? Not to worry,
Pennsylvania Ave. seems to always have Wall Streets back!
Very true -- my wife works for the largest coal company in the US.
Gov't <especially Obama> has all but killed them. Coal should be
HALF the price that it now sells for. This hike is due to gov't regulation
and the resulting high cost.
I want the least amount of gov't oversight as is humanly possible.
Gov't doesn't set the price of oil... and if Exxon and Mobil can
bring us oil at 50 bucks a barrel then I see that as nothing but
win/win. How about the poor working class getting a break now
and then? Poor people don't give a damn about stock portfolios,
they want to simply be able to afford a gallon of gas and to be
able to heat their homes. Me-thinks you are taking this waaaay
beyond what cheaper oil would do for us as well as 'do against'
Common Sense (1776)
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even
in its best state is but a necessary evil. We have it in
our power to begin the world over again.
Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas
they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our
wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY
by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by
restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse,
the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the
last a punisher.
We lost more of our population in that war based on those
words than any other war in our history.
Maybe, just maybe with this Republican victory, we indeed
will "have it in our power to begin the world over again."
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 12:22:36 AM UTC-5, 83LowRider wrote:
You clearly stated the last 4 decades part after I pointed out several times that "never" is longer than just the last 4 decades. And even in the last
4 decades, the USA has affected the price of oil, the 80s being a prime
Shift noted. Of course we can't "set" the price of oil. But that
isn't what you said. You said:
"The US has never before been in a position to affect the price of oil. "
set <> affect
We have affected the price of oil in the last 4 decades. When Reagan
took the windfall profits tax off oil, lowered tax rates overall, encouraged
investment, US production increased and the price of oil plummeted, down to below $10 a barrel.
Oil is not only produced in the Middle East. To try to screw the
ME producers, you'd screw Canada, Mexico, Africa, etc and the US producers
too. In fact, only one of the top 5 countries we currently import oil
from is in the ME, it's Saudi Arabia. The other countries are Canada,
Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. And for the record, those peaceful, stable
countries in the ME are precisely the ones producing the vast majority of
the oil there, thank God.
Sure. That's what Bush and the neocons said about Iraq. How well
is that working? How well are *any* of the regime changes working
in any of the ME countries or Africa? Before regime change, ISIS
didn't exist. Now they not only exist, they've been pumping 7 million
a day in oil themselves.
You may not like their system, but they are for the most part peaceful
and certainly stable. And they are slowly moving more and more towards
capitalism. Hong Kong is capitalism. The rest of China is slowly evolving
that way too. It might be better to let that take it's course instead
of winding up with regime change like we've seen recently. Especially in
a country with 1.5bil people and nukes on ICBMs.
As if China, India, etc set out to wreck the US economy and "did it"
to us. The world is constantly evolving. It was inevitable that China,
India, etc would grow, modernize and become industrial powers. It
happened after WWII, with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc. It is a
I thought wrecking them was precisely your point:
"Without firing a single shot we could almost destroy every
shithole country that is against us."
And actually $50 oil would be of great benefit to China. China
isn't a net exporter of oil, they are the world's largest IMPORTER.
Oil below $50 would be a big boost to China.
You've shifted now to China. Your comments were clearly directed at
trying to drive oil prices lower to screw oil *exporting* countries. The
discussion was oil exporting countries, China is the largest importer.
Sigh.... You really need to get educated. Kuwait, AFAIK, doesn't use stoning period. Women there also have the right to vote and to hold office.
Technically, Saudi Arabia still has stoning on the books, but AFAIK, it's been
30 years or so since it's been used, and even back then, there were only
a few instances. Saudi Arabia also just gave women the right to drive cars.
But, you think it's a good idea to have regime change there and turn it
into another Iraq, Libya, Syria or similar? Good grief.
How much oil and money, does North Korea have?
They already developed nukes and are further ahead on long range rockets
too. Plus, Iran is only one part of the problem. To finance the type of
terrorism that wrecks havock around the world today requires little in
comparison to oil revenues. How much do you think 911 cost? A millionare
individual could have financed it.
Unbelievable. Investors have sunk billions into developing US
oil. Companies, big and small, are looking to recover what they've
put out and make profits on that oil. But, heh, let's drive
the price of oil down to screw them and all the high paying jobs that oil industry workers are earning, just because you want a price war. Good grief.
BTW, exactly how does the USA drive the cost of oil below $50?
Turn a magic dial?
If Exxon wants to sell oil for $50, they can, right now. Of course they won't
because they would go broke because it costs more than that to produce.
The only reason you have all this new oil coming online in the USA is
*because* of the higher prices. Older fields, new marginal fields
are now possible to develop because of the price.
But, heh, let's forget all that and just magically somehow make oil
below $50 a barrel.
Whether someone is rich or poor doesn't change economics 101.
You only have the increased supply of oil because of the higher prices.
Worldwide demand for oil continues to rise. It's classic supply/demand
curves. The free markets are working. And even the poor are affected by
the stock markets. Where do you think a lot of the capital to create jobs
comes from, including the capital for oil development?
If someone [right in front of you] is breaking a law [that we all have
agreed to live by, especially swore an oath to adhere to to gain office]
AND especially breaking a moral code [best examples, the Ten
Commandments]; one MUST pursue shining a bright light on the offender AND
pursuing every course of action to stop, punish, and/or enlighten that
person to stop; ELSE YOU become an accomplice to their wrong doing by
complicity. Waste of time, or not, MUST speak up/out.
A smaller example, is watching someone shop lift in front of you. Do you
ignore, because it's too much bother? NO, if you keep quiet, you're an
accomplice by complicity. I opted for approaching [at a safe distance] and
loudly declaring, "I saw you shoplift. Don't do that in front of me. I
will not be your accomplice. Return the item to the shelf and take
nothing, else I will report to the store manager your actions." I have no
control over crimes I don't see, but I have a responsibility to stop any
crime I see. You should MAKE people do what they know is right.
Management training taught me a basic premise that surprised me upon
discovering, but upon retrospect makes sense. "If you allow a person to do
what they know they should not, they will HATE you. If you make a person
do what they know they should, they will love you."
Applying to our present situation, all voters, all people paying for our
govt, should make all these 'elected' people do what they know they should
do, else they will hate the voters and cause even more damage.
So, my conclusion is 'in the presence of wrong doing', impeach away!
I'm a believer in "doing the right thing" and following
the Constitution even when that's not popular.
Sadly, not popular.
In different cultures, different things are considered
right. An example is teen pregnancy. In the case of
Christians the "right thing" is good nutrition,
counselling, and adoption. In the case of Muslims
(someone correct me if I'm wrong), the "right thing"
may mean honor killing of the girl.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
Robert makes a good point.
To add to what he said, if we do not stop the illegality now, it
becomes a precedent for future presidential behavior.
I think what the Republicans are most scared of is being
tarred with impeaching the "first black president". (I know,
he is not actually "Black".)
I think the Republicans need to get some spine and go after
this illegality while we still can. Otherwise, future others
will make Obama pale by comparison. It truely is our
Republic on the line here. And we need to stop judging
people by the color of their skin and put them in jail
if they break the law, no matter what color they are.
And the Democrats need to put being an Americans first
before being a Democrat. They need to chime in on
impeachment too, as the Republicans did on Nixon.
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:28:52 PM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
The Republicans only chimed in and turned on Nixon at the eleventh hour.
And in that case, we had irrefutable evidence, Nixon himself on tape,
proving that he had committed major felonies.
In the case of Obama, you don't have anything of that clear-cut
substance. To even be talking about impeachment is just nuts.
So far, I haven't seen any real basis for impeachment. If you want to
lower the bar and impeach on just about anything, then just remember that
next time it will be the Democrats impeaching a Republican president.
If Obama takes action that the Republicans believe is illegal, eg his
promised exec order on immigration, there are other ways of challenging it.
The courts and funding being two ways.
I'm VERY confused, during the Nixon coverage every state that went Rep
turned blue, every state that went Dem turned red. Must have changed to
avoid a correlary to the cold war Russian reds. The changeover still
But impeachment isn't by definition a criminal justice act. It is
first and foremost a political one. Especially since there is no
effective definition in law or in the Constitution of what constitutes a
"high crime or misdemeanor". Treason and bribery are both well defined,
but I can't see either applying here.
I can pretty much know ahead of time with great confidence that the
person in front of me is shoplifting and I can react accordingly. When
the person in front of me a doing a high crime or misdemeanor, I not as
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
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.