*YOU* are responsible for high gas prices

[trader4]

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?

[krw]

I've used just saline nose drops, in the past. It works well for cleaning the nose out, too. It's a lot less painful than "Hoovering" the nose, I would think! ;-)

The doc gave me a steroid nose spray, today, and changed the antibiotic. This one is weird; two the first day, then one a day for four. He said it says in the system for ten days after. We'll see if it can knock this thing out.

Actually, most of the congestion and drip is gone. I still have sinus pressure, something going on with the ears, and can't talk, very little drip and I'm not coughing up anything.

The doc told me that, with the new antibiotic, it should be 50% better in four or five days, or come back. I won't be back in town until next Saturday, maybe, so...

[krw]

Having the EN&T specialist play around in there sounds a lot safer for the ear drum, and some other delicate machinery in there, than a quick pass with the Hoover.

[krw]

Well, at least *NOW* we have an explanation for Democrats.

[The Daring Dufas]

All I know is from my own personal experience. It works, your eyes may sink into your skull a bit but will eventually pop back out the first time you experience any constipation. ^_^

TDD

[Robert Green]

It's not bogus, it's simply limited in scope. Not every statistic has to look at the entire universe to make a valid point. The figures presented here indicate that oil speculation has increased measurably and dramatically in the last ten years. Or is that a point that's really in dispute? People who speculate in commodities will assure you it's a wonderful thing that helps everyone but it has some pretty serious downsides when things go wrong. It's also now far less of a hedging risk tool than a way to make a quick profit.

The refutation to Krugman's article on speculation made it pretty clear that there is virtually no way to get to the numbers you want because of record-keeping issues. How do you calculate the tendency of people to keep their gas tanks as full as possible during gasoline shortages? There are any number of places in the supply chain that can hold inventory that aren't easily accounted for.

Besides, your beef isn't even with me, it's with these guys:

[Robert Green]

The article makes some interesting points. I think it overlooks what has been, IMHO, the biggest driving force behind SCOTUS retirements - ill health, either of the Justice or their spouse. Too bad Roberts is so young, relatively. We may be stuck with him for a long time. His "corporations are people" misstep is going to be his legacy. If corporations are really people, wouldn't Rick Perry have executed some by now? (-:

-- Bobby G.

[Vic Smith]

On 24 Mar 2012 12:44:22 GMT, Han wrote:

It's hard to estimate what effect speculation has on a market. The speculator/business lock ratio on oil has flipped from 1:2 to 2:1 in the past ten years or so. One thing to consider is the massive amounts of money available to speculators, the various hedge instruments available to offset or dampen losses, and tax strategies. Most price-setting is determined by computer algorithms. The Borg is here. I traded various futures for a couple decades. Nearly all "technical" (charting) combined with fundamentals. Last time I traded oil I bought at 17 and sold at 19. Last time I traded sugar - a couple years ago - I got burned for $4k, and quit trading. Can't take the risk now that I'm retired. And can't make too much sense of the markets. Too much speculative swing due to massive speculator money. But unless somebody can prove market manipulation/collusion, I look at prices as *mostly* a result of simple supply/demand/perceptions. You don't like 5 buck a gallon gas? Tough. Who ever said low gas prices are a "right?" Hugo Chavez. Gas is 8 cents a gallon in Venezuela. For most everybody else the way it works is you pay what the market will bear. Same with gold. My wife won't buy gold jewelry (of course I agree with her (-:) I remember in the mid or late '70's sugar went sky high. We just stopped buying sugar. But oil is more necessary than gold or sugar for most people. So they have to work harder to reduce demand. That's the only solution. I've got no sympathy at all for those driving relative gas-guzzlers and whining about the price of gas. The same with those who got over their head with housing. What were they thinking? Get used to life in the big city. Drilling more won't help except marginally. There's only so much oil, and that's the perception now. Producers will always keep the price as high as the market will bear. Right at the edge. Doesn't matter how much they drill. They will keep the "oil shortage" perception strong, even when there's a glut of current production. Simple profit motive. That's business. The common man's only option is to pay the market cost. Or cut back on usage. The biggest disappointment I have with government is they are too lame to devise a coherent energy policy. We need many more nukes. Decentralized and smaller. That disaster in Japan - what was it, 5 reactors in one place? - just shows how wrong that "strategy" is, and set nuke power back 20 years. Sure, you can use NG for a while. That will run out too. My plan would be to get the French over here. Tell them to think small plants, widely distributed. New electric infrastructure to support electric car use. Millions of jobs. Then put them to work at it. Oil prices would plunge when that was announced. Won't happen until I'm crowned as Emperor. And I won't hold my breath waiting for that.

--Vic

[Kurt Ullman]

Sounds like a Z-pack. My kid thinks they are a wonder drug for sinus infections.

[Kurt Ullman]

Just those that try to make a universal point. So limited in scope as to be valueless/ The figures presented

Nope, but the actual impact on the worldwide market and oil prices is still not exactly settled.

Which is beside the point. All we are (supposedly) looking at is oil deliveries versus oil contracts. All of that takes into account such things because the deliveries don't get made if they aren't needed.

But oil futures should also have no real effect on oil prices unless the contracts are actually being fulfilled. Fulfilling them is what takes the oil of the market and is reflective of the demand. The really interesting stat would be how well they reflect the spot demand or other prices of the actual commodity.

That hasn't been the case. One of the more interesting (and overlooked if not actively ignored issues) is that the oil companies have very stable profit margins. So, they make pretty much the same %age on gasoline no matter their costs are. But that also means that the actual profit made fluctuates according to the price. But to suggest not drilling won't have an impact on prices is valid? How is it that the oil decisions of OPEC have such great impact, but ours won't?

[krw]

Yeah, I think that's what the doc called it. The antibiotic is Azithromycin on a pop-out card, with the pills marked for days. On day two, my ears and throat still feel like ground beef.

[Attila.Iskander]

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.

[trader4]

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!

[Attila.Iskander]

Good point I missed that

[John Carter]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:Dq6dndVpHJK9ifrSnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

Well these are Youtube clips that should relieve your skepticism:

?v=pTvomrCjnQc&feature=related Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

[John Carter]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news: [e-mail] :

Was the bit on ANWR in this clip taken out of context? (Yes Media Matters did produce it, but there is enough here that it can't be taken out of context).: See the last bit on ANWR.

You can't have it both ways.

See O'Reilly: Certainly not abridged in this talking point:

John Caryer

[John Carter]

Jim Yanik wrote in news:XnsA01B6F8E6471Djyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44:

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.

[Jim Yanik]

John Carter wrote in news:XnsA022A1FB686BFjcartgmailcom@74.209.136.91:

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.

[trader4]

[e-mail]

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.