Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say
marketwatch.com — Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told
msaleem- 2839 diggs
- digg it
- perot9296, on 06/25/2008, -29/+134Why don't really fix the problem? I wouldn't be suprised if things start to back off, that way electric cars won't take off. Sooner or later the combustion engine has to die.
- rishid, on 06/25/2008, -18/+10I think this would be good for the economy. But I believe the next President, aka Obama, will still push for more renewable energy research and development even if gas prices drop to this level again.
The economy and my pocket is really hurting from gas prices this high.- misguidedmonkey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Why are you being dugg down? You're a total douche nozzle.
- pitlord, on 06/25/2008, -35/+14Typical left-wing pessimism. Even if we start winning we're still losing, huh?
>.>
Just pathetic.- scallon, on 06/26/2008, -4/+17what, exactly, are we currently "winning" ?
- pitlord, on 06/26/2008, -11/+2Iraq is growing in peace and safety they haven't known in decades, the economy is bottoming out while we have the lowest interest rates AND unemployment we've had since the last time Dems had control, the terrorists can't seem to find a viable target for their attacks outside of their own back yard, I could go on…
^^
The Righteous in the world are waking up, the days of cold darkness are numbered. No wonder you don't want to believe.
o.o - Silentnite85, on 06/26/2008, -2/+8Haha, so your one of the 15% still enjoying Bush. I wondered where I'd find one.
- 1randomguyO8, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Pitlord, watch fox much?
- pitlord, on 06/26/2008, -11/+2Iraq is growing in peace and safety they haven't known in decades, the economy is bottoming out while we have the lowest interest rates AND unemployment we've had since the last time Dems had control, the terrorists can't seem to find a viable target for their attacks outside of their own back yard, I could go on…
- scallon, on 06/26/2008, -4/+17what, exactly, are we currently "winning" ?
- AmusedToDeath, on 06/25/2008, -4/+70Even if gas was 50 cents a gallon, I'd still buy a reliable, reasonably priced hybrid/electric/hydrogen/water/whatever if it was available. But it's not. So why the ***** do you have to drive me into bankruptcy while we wait for this magical transportation device to appear out of the ether,
- Dustmuffins, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11most people won't
- Julik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I think this is where you are wrong. If nothing else the $4 gas has really opened people's eyes. I have some associates are well enough off that they don't need to worry about $4 gas, or even $10 gas. They recently traded in a Suburban they have had for years to buy a more fuel efficient car. It was not the price that made them do it.
- Dustmuffins, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2But the simple fact remains that unless there is a significant monetary incentive to drive a more fuel efficient car, most people will continue to drive their more powerful, more utilitarian cars.
- scoottie, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2well put
- mysql101, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Some people are aware that if you need to transport raw materials and hardware across the globe several times to build your batts and other parts of your Prius, it does more environmental damage than if you had simply gotten a regular fuel efficient vehicle, such as a diesel accord that can get 60 mpg. Getting a Prius because all you see is the gas pump in front of your face just means you're buying into hype without doing any thinking for yourself.
Personally, the only "hybrid" I'd want is a plugin version, assuming of course, that it's range is within my 16-mile each way trip to the office. But it would have to be carefully weighed against diesel alternatives
- Dustmuffins, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11most people won't
- JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -13/+5Sorry Casandra, but its too late for your tale of doom and gloom.
US Auto manufactures have made below the water line investments in alternative energy automobiles.
They will come whether you use it as a political tool or not.
The Speculation boogie man is just a typical "gotta have a boogie man" liberal tool used during elections.- ph1sh55, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7"typical liberal tool?" It is most certainly a tactic used universally by politicians left, right and center.
- JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -12/+2No, Republican using moral and social issues like ***** marriage and abortion.
Democrats are socialist, they use bogus issues like social security to scare the old folks and oil and the evil corporations.
- JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -12/+2No, Republican using moral and social issues like ***** marriage and abortion.
- tnoy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+8The difference here is, speculation is actually causing the problem.
- ph1sh55, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7"typical liberal tool?" It is most certainly a tactic used universally by politicians left, right and center.
- ElectricC0wb0y, on 06/26/2008, -10/+11Here is reality: Electric cars won't take off. Gasoline holds 30 times the energy as the best betters per unit of volume. Ideally, gas engines emit zero toxic fumes (CO2 causes greenhouse, but its not toxic.) In most population centers of the US, electricity and energy prices are tied directly to gas.
What about US delivery systems? Food prices would go down immediately. Corn prices would fall causing direct effects in animal products and almost every corn syrup sugar-based product that we consume.
Most of corporate America is banking on falling corn prices (and therefore I bet falling oil prices). Why do I think this? Products made with corn syrup (juices, peanut butter, you name it) are at the same price point as their 'natural' sugar based counter parts. Minute Maid, Jiff, and everyone else won't be able to compete with the natural diet craze if this trend continues or worsens. So either they think corn prices will fall, or they are gonna be as late to jump on this bandwagon as they were with the atkins diet.- aspec, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5That maybe so, but it's the first time we've ever had a reasonable alternative to gasoline. I know that no matter what gas will be, a plug-in hybrid is at the top of new car list and fuel economy is important to pay attention to, because in 6 months they could just as easily choke the supply line and start this all over again.
Will we forget to look for alternatives? No.
Will we drive more. Definitely. But a car that can get me to work and back and never sip off the tank is an insurance policy so I don't have to sacrifice other conveniences should gasoline ever decide to take the trip up to *****-expensive-land all over again.- dood, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6"Will we forget to look for alternatives? No."
We forgot after the 70's, I think it's a safe bet we'll forget again. - kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2my family was in oklahoma in the 70s. Soo seeing that is when we had our oil boom. gas was like 21 cents :P
- dood, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6"Will we forget to look for alternatives? No."
- fredfishwater, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3I don't know about units of energy in Gas, but it's irrelevant when we have vehicles that can only burn it with low efficiencies compared to electric. That's where electric will ALWAY have it beat. The ONLY exception I can think of is something like a gas fuel-cell, and even that's a stretch. Consider the fact that electrics run at .02 cents / mile. To get that kind of mileage you'd need a car that gets 130 miles per gallon at todays prices to compete. I can't think of a single hybrid on the market, or anything else gasoline based that gets anything close to that.
- bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1their prices are definitely hedged, there's no way that they get the inputs for their goods straight off "the market".
also it's likely their high profit margins for HFCS goods are just eroding. they don't want their sales to drop so they simply take a lower margin instead of losing sales to "fresh" foods.
- aspec, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5That maybe so, but it's the first time we've ever had a reasonable alternative to gasoline. I know that no matter what gas will be, a plug-in hybrid is at the top of new car list and fuel economy is important to pay attention to, because in 6 months they could just as easily choke the supply line and start this all over again.
- jzuska, on 06/26/2008, -1/+16I really wish we would stop putting so much effort into getting the price down, and more into alternatives.
I like more nuke plants and electric cars but I stab myself with spoons and ckickens.- quakken, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Nuclear energy and electric cars sounds like the way that we can get out of this "crisis".
- Tiggums, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Don't do it! Ckickens are deadly!!!!!111!!!oneoneone!!!!
- Naieve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I'd prefer nuke plants and hydrogen fuel cells. (hydrogen split from water using nuke power)
The convenience of refilling a hydrogen cell as opposed to stopping for 2 to 6 hours to recharge every 300ish miles actually allows for reality to come into play.
For the people who only drive to work and back, sure electric cars are fine. Just don't visit any family. - perot9296, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Nuclear power is not the way to go. If they do build more, the nuclear waste should stay in your own state, not transported to another.
- Charlotte_Web, on 06/26/2008, -3/+10Government intervention in market prices is rarely a good thing.
They are making this sound like a quick fix; I'd be very interested in hearing from economists who disagree with this strategy.- kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1it depends. Gas is an inelastic good because it's a necessity. gov't setting a price ceiling might help out for the short term, but this will as you said cause a shortage in supply.
- bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1When I was in china the taxi that we rode in ran off of some type of gas. I was looking at the engine when the driver was refueling it. Also their gasoline is subsidized by the government and I don't think there's a shortage.
- rlbond86, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5Except that it's not a free market anymore, it's become a speculative market.
- known, on 06/26/2008, -0/+11. Ban futures trading on oil world-wide.
2. Free public transportation.
3. Tax, Regulate or Subsidize OPEC. - Naieve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The governments already affecting the costs.
Or have you not noticed the Fed giving billions of dollars away to people who already lost billions of dollars in the first place?
Inflation + loss of confidence = Epic Loss...
- kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1it depends. Gas is an inelastic good because it's a necessity. gov't setting a price ceiling might help out for the short term, but this will as you said cause a shortage in supply.
- rocket777, on 06/26/2008, -12/+5The only thing congress will make $2 a gallon is the taxes. If they ever (again) try to control prices, get ready to wait in lines on odd/even days.
Seems like every generation has to be un-brainwashed. It takes a kid 20 or 30 years to finally see though the useless promises of big government. And then another 20 years to finally see that government has the reverse Midas touch - everything they touch turns into *****.
But then the congress has their own gas stations and enough slaves to fill up their tanks - and drive them around - all payed for by we suckers.- bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4limiting speculation is very different from limiting the supply or setting a price ceiling.
- smashhell, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but I see it differently.
I see is is the Older people in this country that are relaying on the government too much.
Younger Generation wouldn't give a ***** about the government.
- nugx, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Lets go with sooner on that one.
- Rethread, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0I'll go there. Back in the day you didn't need to "drive" 40 mi to work or call 10,000 miles to complain about a purchase. The people around you were your family AND your livelihood. There was no gas. Nobody made the stuff, and everyone got on just as cantankerously as they do now.
At the EXACT same exchange rate. You do for me, I'll take care of you. That was once the law, because it made sense. Now it's classes, income, and even countries. Bad enough to have the urge to kill a neighbor, but a COUNTRY? That's just stupid, doesn't get you anywhere. But, it's cheaper, why?
That's the question that will get ya killed.
NC- smashhell, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1It's called Civilization. We are not in the medieval age anymore. =_=
- sjl127, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1The combustion engine will die when America falls, which I will help to not let happen.
- Julik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1America is not the only country that uses the combustion engine...
- rishid, on 06/25/2008, -18/+10I think this would be good for the economy. But I believe the next President, aka Obama, will still push for more renewable energy research and development even if gas prices drop to this level again.
- NICU, on 06/25/2008, -16/+234Woo woo now is the time to buy a big boat, an SUV to pull it, and a flatbed truck to pull your SUV, gas will be cheap again.
People don't care about saving the environment they care about saving their own money. The exact same thing happened in the 70's and it will happen again. When gas gets cheap you'll see the F150 be #1 again and people realizing how ridiculous they look in a Yaris.- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -48/+19Damn Right, I care about MY money! I care about my money more than I care about your money, more than I care about the environment, more than I care about who's going to be president. I care about MY money, because MY money is what feeds, clothes and shelters me and my family! Screw the damn polar bears, I want $2 per gallon gasoline. I want $.99 gasoline. ***** HOT, I want it FREE! The envrionment? Well, I'm all for saving the whales, but I'm not gonna let my kids starve to do it!
- siszam, on 06/25/2008, -12/+30If you don't take care of the environment your kids will still starve. Way to be shortsighted.
- sexybobo, on 06/25/2008, -19/+6I am not shortsighted I plan on not having kids so no matter what i do i will not adversly affect my children.
- gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -1/+10he wasn't talking to you. what is it with people on digg responding as if they were the person who something was originally directed at? It happens all the time. in this particular case, he was responding to someone else's children argument. How does YOUR not having kids mean anything to him?
This really is an odd phenomenon. - TheXuu, on 06/25/2008, -6/+4I feel bad for your unborn children sexybobo. You sure will affect them in that they wont be born at all.
- Cuchanu, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3You're right, unless it happens to them right this minute most people don't give a *****. There are places where they have no more room for garbage so recycling is MANDATORY, but will other places learn from their lesson or will they wait until needles are washing ashore? You know the answer.
The fact that there is maybe, MAYBE 50 years of oil left and so little is being done to move to alternatives is shocking and I almost want to see people's own ignorance and short sightedness bite them in the ass so we can say "I told you so" to the conservatives that used the word environmentalist like it was a swear word. But then again my daughter has to live on this planet. - americanhelot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Kids across the world are starving across the world NOW because of people like you and your public school understanding of science and economics.
- relic180, on 06/25/2008, -12/+23And you're basically the core of what is so ***** about America.
"Me, Me, Me, and ***** you."
Maybe it's too much to ask, but you realize there are bigger issues at stake besides your inability to feed and cloth your kids because you drive your SUV around too much.- B1663r, on 06/25/2008, -9/+4"Me, Me, Me, and ***** you"
You obviously did not grow up in America or you failed to adjust to it at a really early age... - relic180, on 06/25/2008, -6/+19@B1663r
Ok, and that makes perfect sense. Because the country I was born and raised in is full of assholes, and if I don't accept it and get used to it then it's my fault. Because god ***** forbid we don't all completely tolerate every stupid, self-important, 'retard-speak' comment from every ***** ***** who wants to scream about how they're the most important piece of ***** around.
Yea, what moron I am, the selfish assholes run this place. I should either get used to it or get the ***** out, right? ***** RIGHT?!? - Wargalas, on 06/25/2008, -4/+8You grew up in France Relic?
- Cuchanu, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5Everybody in the world is selfish for the most part. Here we just have the means to be extra selfish and wasteful.
- marx2k, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Relic, your sarcasm detector is on the fritz.
- B1663r, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2marx2k,
The double, nay triple entendre tells me his sarcasm detector is working just fine.
See, he did the exact same thing I did, only he took it even further, but then with the triple ironic "Because god ***** forbid we don't all completely tolerate every stupid, self-important, 'retard-speak' comment from every ***** *****".
I lost my coffee on that line. Relic, funniest post ever! You da man! - Mactrekr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Relic, there are no bigger issues than me, to me. And, for all your altruistic whining, and your chest pounding "look at me I'm saving the planet with my outrage", when it comes right down to it, YOU are the most important thing to YOU. Grow up, take a reality pill whatever, but get off your high horse, your ***** stinks just like everybody else. If you were forced to cut back on your lifestyle to feed your kids or yourself, you'd be bitching louder than anyone.
- B1663r, on 06/25/2008, -9/+4"Me, Me, Me, and ***** you"
- siszam, on 06/25/2008, -12/+30If you don't take care of the environment your kids will still starve. Way to be shortsighted.
- bdbr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+34Yep. We SAY we want our politicians to be forward-thinking, but the reality is we just want to be comfortable now - even if we know it means we'll be completely ***** in the future.
- rorster, on 06/25/2008, -12/+5You obviously don't care about people starving. Because newsflash: TRUCKS DELIVER FOOD.
- Rickler, on 06/26/2008, -6/+4NEWSFLASH!: There will always be starving people with a 6.5+ billion population. BLAST-FROM-THE-PAST!: People ate food before the time of delivery trucks.
- ExRe, on 06/26/2008, -4/+4Could you imagine how cheap food would be if half the country wasn't obese?
Some people eat more in 1 meal here than you need in a week to survive. I'd bet 75% of people eat more in one day than they need in a week.- sodade, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3One order of curly fries has enough fat for 5 daily servings.
- brstilson, on 06/26/2008, -2/+38The fact remains though that gas will not stay at $2 a gallon. I only hope it gets that cheap again for the trucking industry. Heck I'd be happy with diesel coming back down to some realistic prices. You think $4 a gallon to fill your 15 gallon tank is bad? Try having to buy 150 gallons or more at almost $5 a gallon. There is no reason Diesel should be more expensive than gas. It is a less-refined form of fuel that is much cheaper to make and costs a lot less to refine. More oil goes into making diesel than it does gas.
- 808ethan, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2You have a valid point.
One contributor to the high diesel price is probably taxes. Commuter cars do virtually no damage to roads, the need for road repairs is caused by heavy trucks and of course nature. Commuter cars actually pay a significant part of this tax, which seems unfair... but practical.
I'd bet if we got a breakdown diesel prices are lower but the taxes are much greater.- geauxtig3rs, on 06/26/2008, -0/+118-wheelers pay a heavy highway use tax of well over $1000 per year.
- lisajohnson55, on 06/26/2008, -1/+12I agree with you and am pissed since I drive a diesel and have to deal with the super high price. I mean logically, you would think that since it doesn't have to be as refined, it shouldn't cost as much, but there is a reason for it, at least according to what I have heard:
You can't just make diesel, it actually is a byproduct of making regular gasoline, and there is a bigger difference than it just being less refined. For every amount of gasoline produced, there is a smaller amount of diesel produced as a byproduct, meaning that there is less made, which makes it more expensive. Don't take my word for it, but that's the reason from what I have heard.- growler1, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Well said. Europe has had diesel motors that get 40+ mpg (converted from kilometers) for a while now. Diesel may actually be my next choice for a vehicle, because VW is introducing a diesel sportwagon version of the Jetta. Estimated highway mileage is 41 mpg.
- Joe11Blue, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Umm, no.Diesel is a byproduct of refining Petroleum...
Just like every fuel we use for energy.
Gasoline is so far removed from the refining process of Diesel. You know how the refining process starts right? They "cook" the base petroleum, and filter what comes off. They don't just refine specifically for gasoline. they break it down into the base compound's and further refine the mixture's to meet the standard's set by the EPA. You refine the oil, and out some's Natural Gas, Gasoline, Kerosene, Diesel, etc, and etc....
The increased use of Diesel in the US, and China are the reason's for the price hike. Again it's the speculation market's. Look in any industry sector, and you will Diesel Propane, and Kerosene are the main fuel's. Increased industry mean's increased need's and over-inflated speculation's. - brstilson, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2"You can't just make diesel, it actually is a byproduct of making regular gasoline, and there is a bigger difference than it just being less refined."
I guess that's technically correct. But actually gasoline is actually a byproduct of making kerosene. - JrtD, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Reducing the price of diesel is more critical than reducing the price of regular gasoline.
When I pay more for gas for personal use, I'm at the end of the chain. I can't pass the extra expense along to anyone else, so no other product price is affected. Even if I ride a bike to work and stop driving, higher diesel prices will affect me because I depend on goods delivered by trucks. Let's fix the problem for truckers as our first priority.
- groberts1980, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1I never understood why diesel was more expensive than gas. It all comes from crude oil, but diesel is refined first, then they have to keep refining it to get gas. In other words, diesel is easier to refine than gasoline.
- 808ethan, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2You have a valid point.
- ohmahgawd, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5The hilarious thing here is that on caring about their money, it is in usually in the short term standards. Most cars these days will lose value over time, and the gas prices will always be higher, despite inflation. In other words, you're not thinking ahead, and in the end, you're not caring about your money.
- jemka, on 06/26/2008, -1/+19"people realizing how ridiculous they look in a Yaris." -made my day
- tmpoirier, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4i resemble that remark.
- qb0ibids, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1how can you resemble a remark
- stupidStan, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3he drives a Yaris genius
- tmpoirier, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4i resemble that remark.
- theonlywizdum, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3You environmentalists will have your day. In a few years, when gas gets high enough, the population will start to shrink. This will be mostly due to the people that stop bringing their wallets to the gas station, and start bringing their 12 gage shotguns.
- xexx, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Or maybe they could take responsibility and limit their dependence on gas.
- arjie, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I bet my n-gage shotgun beats your "12 gage" anyday.
- TheBigSquid, on 06/26/2008, -5/+27I was with you until "..and people realizing how ridiculous they look in a Yaris" part. I think seeing one ***** in a big Excursion commuting to work looks ridiculous. Seeing a hick in an F-150 looks almost as bad. For *****'s sake, why do so many people need such big pick ups? To hold their oversized confederate flag belt buckles or Yosemite Sam beards?
- SolitarySoviet, on 06/26/2008, -2/+6wow best comment Ive read this week both for the truth and humor..
- andreo, on 06/26/2008, -1/+10Actually some of those hicks need a pickup. I didn't realize how much a truck is needed by someone until I moved to a rural area. A car just doesn't cut it out here. I had no choice but to buy a cheap truck to get things done.
I don't drive it unless I have to, heck I've had the same tank of gas in it for the last 3 months. - bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7just head down to walmart down der' and GIT 'ER DONE!
- redneckblues, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6What else am I going to put my stainless-steel trailer hitch testicles on?
- Naieve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Just wait till that soccer mom in the Excursion loses control as she smokes her cigarette chatting with Nancy on the cell and hits your Yaris.
- JrtD, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I don't think we'll get complacent this time. Unlike the 1970's, we are feeling much more vulnerable -- with ongoing terrorism threats, and clear evidence that oil corporations are willing to ruin the economy for obscene profit margins. We know we can't trust oil companies, and we can't trust foreign countries that are angry with us.
In the 1970s, oil companies were seen as victims of OPEC gas shortages but still solid, more-or-less decent companies. Now we know that we can't count on oil companies. They aren't drilling for oil on the leases they have and are trying to lock up the rest of our country's oil reserves so no one else can either. They aren't trying to build refineries. They aren't going to solve our energy problem.
Politics have changed since the 1970's. President Carter tried to push alternative energy through Congress, but Republicans managed to kill it all (Reagan's removal of solar panels from the White House was a poke in the eye of anyone wanting alternative energy). This time, Republicans are on their way out, and new Democrats are primed to take over. (Don't ask me why President Clinton failed to push new energy policies, but he's last century's old news.) We're ready to move forward after being so badly burned by oil companies, and, if our leaders don't act, we're ready to push them out of office.- kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Yea, I think things are about to change. The Republican's reign is about to come to an end, and with that comes an end to regression, and a move towards progress. The Republicans at our expense has really put us behind a lot of the other industrial nations in technology, and infrastructure, and all the while making people believe we are the best, and the whole world is a third world country.
- Julik, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The oil profit margin is not changing... It is the same as it was before.
90+% of the leased land they own doesn't have oil or enough oil for it to be worth drilling. It takes a lot of energy and money to drill for oil, if you are not getting enough out of the ground then it is not worth it.
There are plans to build a new refinery. - JrtD, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0If 90% of the land leased to oil companies doesn't have enough to be worth drilling, why don't they release those leases? Something is fishy there.
The BBC reported that, between 1995 and 2001, 24 refineries closed in the US. In 1996, Texaco wrote a memo complaining about a surplus of refinery capacity. Oil companies want a shortage so they can make more money with less production. New refineries aren't being built in this country because oil companies don't want to build them.
However, I see that Shell is interested in taking steps to build a new refinery in China:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/shell-petroc ...
As I said before, oil companies are not going to solve our energy problem. They are capitalists; they are not governmental or public agencies. I don't know of any law that requires private companies to sell products at a quantity that meets all consumer needs in this country (or am I missing something?). If consumers expect a reliable supply of energy, we need to do it with public utilities and not rely on private companies.
- nytejade, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Most people don't care about saving the environment OR saving their own money.
For what it's worth, I read a recent statistic that states 58% of hybrid owners bought a hybrid vehicle to make a statement about themselves, whereas only 18% actually had any concern about the environment.
When the Prius' started showing up in Hollywood, they began selling like hot cakes. Ironically, the Civic Hybrid still wasn't selling that well during that time.
- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -48/+19Damn Right, I care about MY money! I care about my money more than I care about your money, more than I care about the environment, more than I care about who's going to be president. I care about MY money, because MY money is what feeds, clothes and shelters me and my family! Screw the damn polar bears, I want $2 per gallon gasoline. I want $.99 gasoline. ***** HOT, I want it FREE! The envrionment? Well, I'm all for saving the whales, but I'm not gonna let my kids starve to do it!
- snea, on 06/25/2008, -13/+381I'm all for fuel efficiency and alternative forms of energy and transportation but if gas dropped back down to $2 I'd walk a around with a boner for about a week.
- relic180, on 06/25/2008, -4/+125You may have a boner for a week, but your balls would belong to OPEC.
- longbow486, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10I would be driving around with a boner for a week
- cbartlett, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1In my Hummer.
- longbow486, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10I would be driving around with a boner for a week
- MasterGrief, on 06/25/2008, -1/+26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism
- wrathchilde, on 06/25/2008, -0/+42I usually hit the emergency room after four hours like the bottle says...
- durgahutt, on 06/25/2008, -13/+7Even $2 a gallon is still twice as much as it should be. The process and cost of refining oil to gas has not changed in forever. Everything is already paid off so everything is pure profit. People don't seem to understand this concept.
- executorzz, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10Not really. Inflation and demand have not remained the same in that equation. Fair value should probably be around $2+.
- kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4The problem is consumer income hasn't risen in decades, and you can tell it's a gouge in prices because gas is a relatively inelastic good, and usually when inflation comes it means an increase in price at the same rate an increase in income. Except for cases of hyperinflation which we don't have in the US. Fiat currency will always have inflation btw. The fact that gas is inelastic it means it is a guaranteed profit for those who provide this good. Which means we might want to consider setting a price ceiling on this *****.
- executorzz, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10Not really. Inflation and demand have not remained the same in that equation. Fair value should probably be around $2+.
- Zain123, on 06/26/2008, -1/+11You mean you'd drive around.
- crossmr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1***** no. I'd buy a ***** load of gas at $2/gallon, save it, and when it was inevitably driven back up to $4 a gallon, profit!
- crossmr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1***** no. I'd buy a ***** load of gas at $2/gallon, save it, and when it was inevitably driven back up to $4 a gallon, profit!
- anarcurt, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4High oil prices are good for the US bad for the rest of the world except oil exporters, generally). Manufacturing jobs have almost completely stopped going to Asia as it is too expensive to boat it back.
- tnoy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+10Its also gotten too expensive for a ***** of people in the US to buy things like Milk, eggs, bread, etc.
- crossmr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5Except gas wouldn't drop to $2/gallon. Gas was $65 a barrel around 1 year ago, why don't you go take a look at the price of gas 1 year ago, it wasn't $2/gallon.
- bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1barrel of oil is obviously not equal to a gallon of gas.
first of all it's crude oil, and crude oil refines into many types of fuel. and do you know how many gallons are in a barrel? a lot.- crossmr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4The author claimed dropping the price of a barrel by 50% would drop the price at the pumps by 50%. I demonstrated that the price of a barrel was 50% less 1 year ago but the price at the pumps wasn't. Try and keep up.
- crossmr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4The author claimed dropping the price of a barrel by 50% would drop the price at the pumps by 50%. I demonstrated that the price of a barrel was 50% less 1 year ago but the price at the pumps wasn't. Try and keep up.
- smashhell, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2It wasn't.
But the price of Gas was $1.79 before Bush got his Seat in the house.
I still got the Gas Station Receipts !
- bloosteak, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1barrel of oil is obviously not equal to a gallon of gas.
- Plower, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2you'd need to call your doctor
- joeykilluv, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3you sir, have made my night hahaha
- MrJagil, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Ha, I'm from Denmark and gas here costs 10$ per gallon (and is going up!).You have nothing to complain about -.-
- SexWee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5yes but you have lovely bacon
- Naieve, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Yeah but your government is taxing you to kingdom come.
- groberts1980, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2You live in Europe. You have an outstanding public transportation system, and much more fuel efficient vehicles than we have here in the U.S. So shut the ***** up. We have plenty to complain about.
- beabis, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Yeah but you have socialized medicine, which in the USA we have relabeled with the more politically correct name of "Single Payer System". The only way your government can afford to give you free medical care is to tax everything else at insane rates. Here in the US the Obots can'tt seem to realize that the money has to come from somewhere.
- relic180, on 06/25/2008, -4/+125You may have a boner for a week, but your balls would belong to OPEC.
- wynja, on 06/25/2008, -13/+62Yeah, 30 days to correct the problem that started decades ago. Neal Ryan is right. New loopholes will be found. We need to adopt a fundamental change in the way futures markets are regulated. Instead of telling them what's illegal to do, which allows for people to find giant holes that were not even imagined. We need to tell these people exactly what they are allowed to do, and anything outside that becomes illegal.
- pintomp3, on 06/25/2008, -2/+12no matter which laws you try to write, they will be written by lobbyists. that is the root of this and many other problems. it's not just a republican problem or a democratic problem. it's an american problem.
- 55mph, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7pin, you've hit the nail on the head.
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy."
Woodrow Wilson - kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1then we need to beat them at their own game. I think people should start to lobby their congressman. Trust me if communities pooled in resources this is a very possible thing to pull off.
- stuffradio, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1It's not an American problem, it's a world wide problem.
- 55mph, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7pin, you've hit the nail on the head.
- acetv, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3That's a little... and I hesitate to use the word... unAmerican, don't you think?
- Dauntless1, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7Really? The truth is every country needs certain guidelines, even America. And there should damn well be penalties for going outside them.
- aspec, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3You're being dugg down, but I can't disagree with you. The fact is that an economy, in order to be sustained, cannot exist in anarchy. Nor can we continue to enforce laws only as they become convenient. Regulation (as un-american as it may sound) is necessary to sustain our way of life, because there are those that are obsessed with the next million dollars in their pocket, while we're supposed to act carefree about whether or not we can afford to eat.
- Dauntless1, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7Really? The truth is every country needs certain guidelines, even America. And there should damn well be penalties for going outside them.
- Crimsoneer, on 06/25/2008, -2/+5That doesn't change the fact that we are using a hell of a lot more petrol and aren't producing any more, despite the saudis trying to convince the world otherwise.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/25/2008, -3/+13Okay look, I built another wing to the left of the left wing so I could have my communist nanny-state meetings there, but even I shy away from government taking long-term default regulatory control of markets. Why not just quit the charade and and fix the price?
Speculation is necessary specifically because it does have an effect on markets -- it translates opinions about the future into current pricing. Americans drove 1.4 billion fewer miles this past April than the April before because gas prices were high. That's the built-in effect of futures speculation saying "the future looks bad, you'd better be conserving this resource now."
The price of gas is high because it should be, we shouldn't short-circuit that mechanism.- aspec, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3That only works if it's a resource we can live without. The future tomorrow may look bad, but the day after, you still have to put gas in your tank.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Well, a shift in free-market dynamics turned up 1.4 billion miles we could do without.
Any evolutionary system needs pressure in order to change, and the pressure from rising gas prices has already shifted the auto industry away from Hummers and made alternatives more cost-effective. Oil is becoming (a little bit) less necessary every day.
And the funny part is? Those shifts will reduce the demand for oil, and lower the price. - dagamer34, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Less and less necessary yes, but not eliminated and certainly not anytime soon.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2@dagmar:
It's sort of the opposite, isn't it? The most fundamental force governing free-market fluctuations in the price of oil is that someday it will be gone, and no one knows how soon.
When consumption goes up or down, price against short-term production is certainly a factor, but price against various opinions on long-term scarcity are being reflected in the moves of some of the largest players in the market.
One thing we all know though -- it will be gone, and Al Gore movies and Treehugger articles aside, the only thing that will really move us to change things on a large scale is when oil becomes more expensive than investing in the alternatives.
- Laminarcissus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Well, a shift in free-market dynamics turned up 1.4 billion miles we could do without.
- Tommyhawk, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Totally agree. I have a personal theory that the unintended consequence (and there are always unintended consequences) of regulating futures speculation would crash the dollar. Here's my reasoning: People are buying oil is as a hedge against inflation which means their worried about the dollar. Since oil is set on worldwide markets, traded in dollars predominantly, and dollars are the reserve currency of the world... if you all of a sudden tell people they can no longer buy oil with their dollars you've just pulled the rug out from the dollar. They've tried it before and the results were similar. The crashing dollar would actually drive oil prices higher but then Congress would have some other cockamamy explanation for why the dollar was crashing totally unrelated to the market regulations.
- rlbond86, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You Ron Paul people think everything will crash the dollar.
- NCg8r, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Exactly. The dollar is fine! I mean, it's worth $0.68 but it's fine!
- aspec, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3That only works if it's a resource we can live without. The future tomorrow may look bad, but the day after, you still have to put gas in your tank.
- Dwebtron, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"We need to tell these people exactly what they are allowed to do, and anything outside that becomes illegal."
Isn't that what bush has already been doing?
- pintomp3, on 06/25/2008, -2/+12no matter which laws you try to write, they will be written by lobbyists. that is the root of this and many other problems. it's not just a republican problem or a democratic problem. it's an american problem.
- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -41/+21People, People, People, The internal combustion engine is EVIL, we should all sit in a circle and sing kumbaya! Quick, stop farting, it's a green house gas! Elect ALGORE as the next king of the freaking world. If you want to encourage alternative energy solutions, GREAT, offer tax incentives, but don't punish hard working Americans, and don't destroy the economy! Cripes, $2 a gallon sounds damn good right about now.
- swordedge, on 06/25/2008, -5/+10Internal combustion is not evil. Using it to burn fossil fuels is evil. It can burn lots of fuels other then gasoline. Hydrogen for example (the rotary engine can do that without major alterations).
- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -6/+17WHooooooosh, right over your pointy little head!
- relic180, on 06/25/2008, -10/+5Can you simply not bring yourself to be seen in anything that isn't 12 feet tall with a gun rack in the rear window? Sell the truck and by a 20-30 mpg sedan or coupe.
Another year or so of 4$ gas and we'll start seeing solutions that save you money AND remove much of the political influence of the middle eastern oil moguls over our country and our economy.- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4Hey, I drive an F-150, I get 20 miles to the gallon, and damnit, I like my truck. I USE my TRUCK every day, I'd be screwed without it. And, fact is, there isn't a good reason for $4-$5 per gallon gasoline. I'm all for alternatives, just not at the price you seem so comfortable with.
- EricSchC1, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1Paying $4+ a gallon is a price MOST people are not comfortable with. Hate to break it to you, but you're in the minority here. That, and what would be so bad about driving a big truck that DIDN'T create so much pollution and cost you $75+ to fill up?
- AmusedToDeath, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Eric, what truck do you suggest? The fact is there is no small/light truck that will tow/haul heavy loads. People who do actual work (i.e. physical labor) for a living can't do their jobs with a 4 cylinder Tacoma or S-10. We need BIG trucks to get those jobs done.
You guys are so disconnected from the people and processes that build your houses, put food on your table and bring you goods and services. There is a giant infrastructure in this country that makes your life possible, whether you realize it not. That infrastructure CANNOT operate on existing alternative fuels. We CAN change over to a better system and get off oil, but if you try to force that change overnight with hyper-inflated gasoline prices, you will rapidly turn the United States into a severely depressed, 3rd world country. - EricSchC1, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I never said to hyper-inflate gas prices. Obviously, if there are severe economic and socio-political drawbacks to raising OR lowering gas prices, the problem lies w/how our infrastructure functions in the first place (Replace the system and select few people that forces our dependency and benefit from public loss). I never advocated forcing the issue overnight either. I realize implementation takes time, but doing absolutely *****-all about it will making fixing it when our backs are eventually against the proverbial wall next to impossible and will force us into the least (long-term) beneficial solution, in favor of the band-aids we already use to fix obscenely large problems. I wasn't directly referring to the people who do physical-based "real work" (the implication you might've inadvertantly made that non-physical labor isn't real work is laughable at best, insulting to millions of hard-working non-physical American laborers, at worst), I was referring to every soccer mom, wanna-be gangsta douchebag and self-centered "conservatively-minded" jerk that thinks its all about them first, last and always and if they can't drive a Hummer, their lives are somehow "hindered" by being socially responsible.
Interesting side-note...look at Brazil...they have no dependency on foreign oil now and implemented a functioning changeover to sugar-cane in about 5 years. Granted, our economy and infrastructure are not the same, but if there was a 10-15-20 year plan in place to make change, I'm sure most civic-minded Americans would at least feel better knowing there was light at the end of this tunnel. - relic180, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Gas at $4 a gallon is a pain in the ass, but it sure as hell isn't "hyper-inflated".
If you NEED to use your 4mpg truck for work (as in, you have no choice), then you should be compensated by your employer and if you're not, you should be very pissed AT THEM. Seriously, I would be irate if was unable to feed and cloth my kids because my work was too cheap to reimburse me for something integral to my job.
And if you're self-employed, you're already resourceful enough that you can find another source of income that doesn't require a 75$ tank of gas each morning. - Mactrekr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1So, all of us who are self employed and drive a truck should........ change jobs???? Are you really that stupid???
- EricSchC1, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2@ Mactrekr: No, write it off on your taxes as a business expense,
- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+4Hey, I drive an F-150, I get 20 miles to the gallon, and damnit, I like my truck. I USE my TRUCK every day, I'd be screwed without it. And, fact is, there isn't a good reason for $4-$5 per gallon gasoline. I'm all for alternatives, just not at the price you seem so comfortable with.
- swordedge, on 06/25/2008, -5/+10Internal combustion is not evil. Using it to burn fossil fuels is evil. It can burn lots of fuels other then gasoline. Hydrogen for example (the rotary engine can do that without major alterations).
- NachoBusiness, on 06/25/2008, -7/+72"Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say" and an equal number of other analysts say it could stay the same price or cause the price to go up. Nobody knows! The last time we experimented with large-scale regulation of the crude oil market in the 1970s didn't that cause prices to skyrocket? This involves "preventing pension funds and investment banks from owning commodities" which sounds like a potentially hazardous thing to do the economy... $2 gas sounds great but just because someone claims it will happen doesn't mean that's what will really happen if we make these changes.
- Petrarch1603, on 06/25/2008, -9/+8"The last time we experimented with large-scale regulation of the crude oil market in the 1970s didn't that cause prices to skyrocket?"
google before you post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11"google before you post:"
Right back at you, from your OWN LINK:
"The crisis was further exacerbated by government price controls in the United States, which limited the price of "old oil" (that already discovered) while allowing newly discovered oil to be sold at a higher price, resulting in a withdrawal of old oil from the market and artificial scarcity."
Yes the government can set the price to as low as you like it, it just will mean no-one can have any. Remember gas lines?- anubis2night, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Your own quote shows that your original opinion was wrong, it was not that the government set up regulation it was that they split the prices into old oil and new oil. But thanks for making the 2nd guys point for him.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -4/+11"google before you post:"
- bc289, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7Yeah I mean this is how free markets work. The price is the point in which both sides meet. You can point to four guys who say oil should be $75, but I could point to 10 guys who say it should be $200. Just because there's 4 guys that point to evidence that oil should be around $75, doesn't mean it's true. Why is this being dugg? What about the articles that talk about how oil should be $150, $175, $200? This is just sensationalism getting the best of us.
A couple articles that support the idea that high oil prices are here to stay, and based on fundamentals (growing middle class in emerging economies):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121026120931177437 ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121175335973420383 ...
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? ...
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?source=h ...
Pick any one you want- superkendall, on 06/26/2008, -5/+1It's being Dugg because it's what Obama is using as an energy policy for now. For real.
- anubis2night, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Those article your seeing are the media priming us for larger prices. They did this also with housing and energy. In particular I remember Enron and the energy debacle that the media helped create, we didn't have an energy shortage and yet the media and the talking heads all agreed that there was justification. I have little faith in reporters or analyst's from big business, as they and their papers have a vested interest in both the stock market and as a result the performance of big oil.
- bc289, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The Economist and the Wall Street Journal are both pretty reputable. Also, the first one is a survey among many economists. These aren't just your run of the mill media guys who don't know anything about economics.
Explain why you think oil shouldn't be this high then. See if you can back it up with as much evidence as those guys can. - anubis2night, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Easy take a look at the highest cost to actually drill and deliver oil to market. The highest cost is the industry standard, so in looking at the prices to bring oil to market:
http://www.africanoiljournal.com/11-09-2007_oil_pr ...
You will find that the average price is somewhere around $20. Now the article I linked to will go on to say that Big oil purchases oil from these outside sources at the current cost and so their profit margins are slim. To that I would argue that the big oil companies have exclusive contracts with many of these oil countries for delivery of oil and often lease the fields where the oil is tapped. To think that they then would need to purchase more oil at the rate that is being bid on the open market would be ludicrous. I'd love for someone to explain how oil companies could make a profit from $100+ oil if they had to buy at the price on the stock market, then factor in the price of refining (which is a loser) and yet oil makes something like 29 billion a year in posted gains. That would only happen if their profit margins were thru the roof which in fact they are. Let's not make excuses for them as there are non to be had. The analysts get paid to create economic models that skew to the market and as with any investor driven bubble as long as there's profit to be had by encouraging needless speculation then the analyst's will continue to back the strong price increases and people will continue to buy into the justification. This has happen with housing, energy, and tech stocks before and it always plays out the same. Do the research yourself it's easy to look up just do a query search for cost of crude oil 2008.
- bc289, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1The Economist and the Wall Street Journal are both pretty reputable. Also, the first one is a survey among many economists. These aren't just your run of the mill media guys who don't know anything about economics.
- gernblansted, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10Oil prices went up in the 70s because Arab oil producers boycotted the US market. When they realized the US might seriously turn to alternatives, they decided never to make that "mistake" again.
Oil prices are up now primarily because the value of the dollar is being wiped out by massive dept to fund the Iraq war (It's ALL going right to the US credit card, every bit - today - tomorrow - as far as we can see into the future).
Speculators/energy traders are certainly making it worse (and even if they were not, they still get a flat percentage of profits so the higher oil goes, the more money they make). This is not too much unlike the California "Energy Crises", where not a single blackout/brownout was actually necessary. Energy traders gamed the system, and convinced everyone to laugh at Californians for using too much Energy even though they used less energy per household than a majority of states. I said, they will get the last laugh, because after they got away with it the first time they fully intended to game the system against everyone when they had the chance.
Now, only they are laughing.- NachoBusiness, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Oil prices went up for that reason in the 1970s, but then things got even worse due to ill-conceived government regulation of a supply-and-demand problem. I agree with you that the feeble dollar (made feeble by idiotic borrow-and-spend policies) is a reason gas costs so much more in dollars... if you buy gas in dollars and dollars lost a lot of their value, of course you need more dollars. Ultimately, you can't regulate your way out of that kind of a problem... your only solution is to make the dollar more valuable. Which ain't going to happen soon with "borrow and spend" and "tax and spend" candidates.
- Petrarch1603, on 06/25/2008, -9/+8"The last time we experimented with large-scale regulation of the crude oil market in the 1970s didn't that cause prices to skyrocket?"
- StingingNettle, on 06/25/2008, -8/+111This is the biggest joke ever. Where was congress when their was speculation in housing? Or in the stock market? That's right people love it when their houses and stock go up in value, just not their gas for their car. Also guess what? Last I checked the US doesn't have a monoply on the oil market, whose to stop all those dollars from buying crude on another market? 2 bucks a gallon yeah right.
Stop inflating the money supply, and we might see things become more stable (that's not going to happen).- Providence, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3On similar note, I don't really think this will be a good idea. Anytime the US Government tries to interfere with the free market, they mess something up. For example, remember the 1980's savings and loan crisis? The government charged extremely low prices on deposit insurance at risky banks, and in the end, taxpayers had to pay for the bailout of the banks when they went under (similar to what happened at Bear Stearns recently).
FTA:
Neal Ryan, manager at Ryan Oil & Gas Partners, said that if Congress develops regulations to cut back speculative trading, speculation will just find a new home.
"Speculation is the root of capitalism," he said. "If the speculation is forced out of the U.S. exchanges, it'll simply show up on other exchanges that are OTC like the ICE, or new exchanges will pop up to allow for the spec trades to continue functioning."
Ryan said he does see a reason for Congress to look at eliminating aspects such as allowing West Texas intermediate crude oil futures to trade on foreign markets and the "Enron loophole," but "these exchanges are currently functioning as they are supposed to in a free marketplace." - retral, on 06/26/2008, -6/+3There, they're and their. Learn them.
- StingingNettle, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I spell incorrectly when I'm angry.
- Rom102, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The Internet bubble burst and speculators lost billions. The housing bubble burst and speculators lost billions. Unfortunately oil is a commodity that virtually everyone MUST participate in the market, unlike the investment & realty markets where only those with excess cash were victimized by those foolish investments. If we allow the speculators and investors to continue to artificially inflate our fuel markets we will see a 'burst' that will impact our nation as a whole.
- roadrunner183, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0If there really is a speculation bubble, and that bursts, how is that bad for consumers? Doesn't it just lower prices?
- XanderDee, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1I am surprised to see someone commenting about what is really causing the gas prices to go up. Actually 90% of the price of oil is monetary inflation. If you take the fake government inflation numbers since 1970 you will see that it has gone up with inflation of the money supply. Only $13 dollars accounts for speculation, demand and OPEC greed.
If the government stopped speculation in Oil then Gold and Silver would rapidly rise and the banks can't have people realizing that gold is money can they.
- Providence, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3On similar note, I don't really think this will be a good idea. Anytime the US Government tries to interfere with the free market, they mess something up. For example, remember the 1980's savings and loan crisis? The government charged extremely low prices on deposit insurance at risky banks, and in the end, taxpayers had to pay for the bailout of the banks when they went under (similar to what happened at Bear Stearns recently).
- DiggLive, on 06/25/2008, -19/+16Democratic congress doesn't want to do anything about the Iraq war, gas prices, the economy, or impeaching Bush. They know that those issues need to look bad in order for them to have an advantage. They're making the American people suffer because they desperately want the White House back. They also won't impeach Bush because that would stop news about his low approval rating, which also gives them an advantage.
- Cuchanu, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3I hate to say it but there doesn't seem to be any other reasonable excuse for what they are allowing to happen. But if that's what it takes to turn the country around and take it out of the villain's hand it may be worth it.
- Wakkyweed, on 06/26/2008, -3/+14Have you ever considered the fact that that the Democrats just barely control congress, and have a hostile sitting president? It's impossible to pass meaningful legislation when everything you send to our ***** president can be vetoed. The Democrats do not have the numbers to override that veto.
We will just have to wait until Obama is president for anything real to get done. In that case if nothing is still being done, then you can start your crying again about how congress doesn't do anything.- Zempz, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3so i don't remember bush vetoing anything on the issues digglive stated. i think a segment of waking life said it best. "simply two sides of the same coin."
- TLLOTS, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's idiotic. If Bush were to veto legislation that was clearly for the betterment of the United States then that would only add more fuel to the Bush hating fire. That's not what's happening however, the Democrats are simply sitting on their collective asses and letting things slide.
- MildApplause, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5They pretend to hate each other, but they're all buddies behind the scenes. Pelosi, Reed, Bush, Cheney, etc. They know that if they control the game and humor us with, as George Carlin so eloquently put, "the illusion of choice," they can keep control of the game and keep cashing the checks.
It's why the democrats didn't impeach Bush. They don't really hate him. They help him. And he helps them. But, nobody helps us. It's rigged.
Unfortunately, when the game is over, they take all of us down with them.
- bfeagan, on 06/25/2008, -2/+30I just want to know what speculators are still buying oil, and maintaining its price, or driving it higher. I mean, WHO? The only reason they do it is because they somehow think it will go higher. They can't do it forever, and when it goes down, as their gain turns into a loss, they may learn a lesson. And beg Congress for legislation faulting someone else afterward. At what point does the smart money begin selling and realizing their gain? Can you short oil? Where are those traders?
- sgiffy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+24You can short it. Basically you enter into a contract to sell X barrels for Y dollars at Z time. if the prices falls you win, if it rises you lose.
As to why people speculate. Well you can write books on market psychology, but when you get right down it speculative bubbles whether they be real estate, tech stocks, or tulips are caused by both herd behavior and greed. You see other traders making bank on oil and so you want a piece. This goes on until something happens, whether spiking foreclosures, credit problems, or whatever starts either impacting the product being speculated on or makes something else more attractive.
In the case of oil any number of things from increasing supply, a stronger dollar, or higher bond rates could bring the bubble back to earth. - pitlord, on 06/25/2008, -2/+5Both dugg for well written and thoughtful questions, instead of the usual flaming and trolling.
(8^D
Thank you. - gregfadein, on 06/26/2008, -4/+10This is precisely why speculation is a very very good thing.
It equalizes present and future prices. Decreasing current supply increases future supply, increasing current costs while decreasing future costs. In other words, speculation will only go so far as to balance present and future prices*: going beyond that would present a steep opportunity cost.
This way we don't squander a precious resource that's artificially $2 a gallon, only to have $40 a gallon gas in a few years because a couple Hummer owners whined for socialized oil.
(* It'll actually fall short of balancing the prices because speculation is imperfect and because the balance will need to account for the real interest rate).- dagnome1984, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Too bad the idiots on digg don't get it. If we forced the price back down to two dollars and there is a sudden upset in the current supply we could be looking at shortages. The global supply is being outstripped by 200,000 barrels a day. As of now there is no sign that China and India are going to stop growing at an alarming rate.
- korvan504521, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as only people who are involved with the market use it. The commodity is too important to permit general specualtion, anymore than we should allow the general population to speculate on electricity or water.
Without oil our economy CRUMBLES. Everything is built on it. Artificial price inflation is destroying the world economy.
- JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5
The left is using the futures market as this years election boogie man.
- sgiffy, on 06/25/2008, -0/+24You can short it. Basically you enter into a contract to sell X barrels for Y dollars at Z time. if the prices falls you win, if it rises you lose.
- cheeseysynapse, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4They are right. Fund managers would be forced to liquidate their positions. And then what? Hedge fund XYZ, who has $1 billion under management - goes to a bank gets a loan for $3 billion, and buys oil on the spot market and stores it until it wants to sell it.
- LordRedSnake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I'm very surprised to see analysts from a firm like Oppenheimer spout this nonsense. Any oil traded on the future market is traded as paper barrels. There is no limit to the number of paper barrels sold, so futures contracts do not accurately reflect the actual supply of oil. The kind of speculation that is traditionally demonized is buying up actual physical assets and hoarding them to drive the price up. Trading futures is no such thing, not even close. Futures traders never actually take delivery of the oil, they sell it to the final consumer of the crude (typically refineries) and act as sellers of oil for prompt delivery.
The best thing that could be done to ease oil prices would be to take on sound monetary policy so investors don't have the overwhelming incentive to plow their assets into commodities. The Fed has not learned from its mistakes and continues to create one asset bubble after another (dot com/telecom, housing, and now oil & gold). Meanwhile the ECB is actually talking about raising interest rates and the Euro area continues to grow at a greater clip than the US because they were smart enough to provide liquidity to address the credit crisis without lowering interest rates at record speed.
- LordRedSnake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I'm very surprised to see analysts from a firm like Oppenheimer spout this nonsense. Any oil traded on the future market is traded as paper barrels. There is no limit to the number of paper barrels sold, so futures contracts do not accurately reflect the actual supply of oil. The kind of speculation that is traditionally demonized is buying up actual physical assets and hoarding them to drive the price up. Trading futures is no such thing, not even close. Futures traders never actually take delivery of the oil, they sell it to the final consumer of the crude (typically refineries) and act as sellers of oil for prompt delivery.
- bincoder, on 06/25/2008, -5/+18Naturally its going to drop.
If for no other reason than that I have 6 tankfulls stashed away.
Should have stashed the gas when it was 75 cents a gallon.
Note to self: Never invest in anything, anytime. Its all a scam.
/sarcasm- leerayIG88, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Stored gas? What if someone burns down your storage? Will this go against your insurance?
- cowsgonemadd3, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Gas wont stay like ethanol(it will stay wont it?) and diesel will. You would need a oxygen booster or some product after like a year.
- SquigglyP, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2six tankfuls? You're telling me you have at least 50 or so gallons of fuel just laying about?
How long have you been storing it, because 1) It doesn't last very long and 2) depending on how it's stored, you could be committing a serious crime. I mean, you don't just have it in milk jugs or something similar I'm assuming... (but if you're a US citizen, then who ***** knows...) - bincoder, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1When you have a Honda, a Toyota, a Chevy 4x4 dual tanker and just drive one of them day to day you have 60 gallons in total all stored safely and legally in steel designed to store gas.
It doesn't age that fast, maybe the desert weather (or lack of weather) preserves it better, I don't know.
The big truck gets driven to emissions testing once a year to keep it legal, it has been half filled with gas a day before Katrina hit at the then high price of 2.89? a gallon and topped off once since then. I just run it once a month or so to keep it working. Passes the testing, no sour smells from the tanks, and runs fine.
A bit much just to store gas, but its being kept to pull the camper up into the mountains for camping, one of these days, if I win the lottery. lol
- Mactrekr, on 06/25/2008, -6/+29I caught the sarcasm, but really, the only things I'll invest in are Guns, Land, and GOLD!
- cdigioia, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Seriously?
- Tommyhawk, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Let me know when you start buying those things would ya? That's when I'll be selling.
- Mactrekr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Yes!
- dood, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Is a gun's resale value really so high? Or are these special collector weapons?
- cdigioia, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4I think the guns are more for doomsday "predictions" than a financial investment. Just guessing, I don't fully speak crazy.
- SquigglyP, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
- Mactrekr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Maybe you should learn to think before you speak. I'm far from crazy, how much have you made in the stock market in the past 2 years???
- dagnome1984, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Guns will gain 10 fold in black market value once they are banned by the democrats.
- Mactrekr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, a firearm, almost any firearm, will at the very least retain it's value, and most, appreciate. As long as it is a quality piece, you buy it at a reasonable price, and it is properly cared for, you will almost never lose money on a gun.
- cdigioia, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Oh I know, but something which only retains it's value, isn't a very good investment.
It needs to appreciate about 10%/year to beat stocks, or 8% for bonds, or something like 7.5% for real estate (all approximations, it's been a few years since finance class, bit too lazy to look up the actual #s). - Mactrekr, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Well, not to be argumentative, but the stock market has tanked over the past couple of years, and most people are losing money in it. Real estate is in the crapper, down as much as 30% in some markets, and at best stagnant in all others. Bonds have a guaranteed rate, but currently it's not enough to compensate for inflation. When I state that guns will hold their value, I'm talking about holding value against inflation. If I bought a gun years ago, it's acutally appreciated in value.
- cdigioia, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Oh I know, but something which only retains it's value, isn't a very good investment.
- cdigioia, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4I think the guns are more for doomsday "predictions" than a financial investment. Just guessing, I don't fully speak crazy.
- stuffradio, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0What about really old swords and weaponry?
- stuffradio, on 06/26/2008, -2/+0What about really old swords and weaponry?
- perudo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2You can get anything you want with a gun and a kind word.
- cdigioia, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7Seriously?
- sgiffy, on 06/25/2008, -2/+10The problem is what will be the effect of ending speculation (if its even possible) on the broader markets. Right now oil is a hedge, a form of risk management. If say oil positions were liquidated in mass that money has to go somewhere. If say it went into bonds, that could drive down bond prices, which impacts lots of things like savings and mortgage rates.
I am not saying do nothing. But we need to be careful and move with cuation. This stuff is highly complex and nobody really understands it in total.- dagamer34, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4To be honest, I think all the money that was in the mortgage market just went into the oil futures market. It makes sense, doesn't it? This all started last summer.
- sgiffy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's a part of it, and so is the over saturated bond market. Their is a huge savings glut in the world, like China and their trillion or so in reserves. All that money has to go somewhere and the most obvious place is bonds, especially in the case of China, and Middle Eastern countries because their reserves are mostly dollars anyways. This is good for us, because it gives us cheap debt, but it drives down bond rates (bonds are sold at auction).
When the mortgage market fell, a lot of money in lovely things like derivatives based on packaged mortgage debt, all went flooding for safe harbor. Bonds were too low, the stock market too risky, so a lot more then normal flooded into commodities.
- sgiffy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1That's a part of it, and so is the over saturated bond market. Their is a huge savings glut in the world, like China and their trillion or so in reserves. All that money has to go somewhere and the most obvious place is bonds, especially in the case of China, and Middle Eastern countries because their reserves are mostly dollars anyways. This is good for us, because it gives us cheap debt, but it drives down bond rates (bonds are sold at auction).
- dagamer34, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4To be honest, I think all the money that was in the mortgage market just went into the oil futures market. It makes sense, doesn't it? This all started last summer.
- bullsfan03, on 06/25/2008, -14/+5All these comments are in big paragraphs and I don't feel like reading them...
- vw2005, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4.... how'd you manage the whole article?
- cdigioia, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Psh, nobody reads the article, just the wildy sensationalist descriptions of the articles that Diggers post.
- vw2005, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4.... how'd you manage the whole article?
- FeargusMcDuff, on 06/25/2008, -9/+10Lower price --> Higher demand --> Higher price
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5if that logic were true then everything would go up in value exponentially since higher price = lower price. Think about it. When the price of desktop memory plummets, there might be a higher demand for it, but it also encourages the price to lower, not raise.
your logic has the price of tootsie rolls at 7 dollars in a year.- FeargusMcDuff, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Right but this is specifically true for oil seeing as the supply and demand of oil is almost completely level, unlike RAM, for example, where there is capacity to raise production without much difficulty.
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4not entirely accurate. The oil companies are sitting on over 86 billion oil barrels worth of leases that they choose not to tap into. Something like 60+million acres of land that they have leases for but choose not to drill because they can meet the demanded supply with easy currently. They run at less than 80% efficiency. They are currently drilling or pumping on only 10 million acres.
There has been 1 new lease requested in the last 15 years and it was granted. This isnt about them not being able to supply it, pump it or anything. They have the resources, money and everything they need to boost what they want to, but they dont need to, have to or want to.
just like ram. You need more gold for capacitors? mine for it. It does apply to the same idea. - dagnome1984, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Not all oil is the same. Some fields cost more to extract from than others. It might not be economically viable to ramp up production of those fields.
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4not entirely accurate. The oil companies are sitting on over 86 billion oil barrels worth of leases that they choose not to tap into. Something like 60+million acres of land that they have leases for but choose not to drill because they can meet the demanded supply with easy currently. They run at less than 80% efficiency. They are currently drilling or pumping on only 10 million acres.
- dagnome1984, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1:0
- FeargusMcDuff, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Right but this is specifically true for oil seeing as the supply and demand of oil is almost completely level, unlike RAM, for example, where there is capacity to raise production without much difficulty.
- superkendall, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5Lower Price -> Higher Demand -> Scarcity when people refuse to sell to low price in US what can be sold for a reasonable price elsewhere.
- madcat033, on 06/26/2008, -1/+5You fail at basic economics. Mostly because you don't differentiate between a "change in demand" and a "change in quantity demanded." The lower price increases the quantity demanded because it puts the market out of equilibrium temporarily. Thus, the reason there is a higher quantity demanded is because the market is adjusting to the new equilibrium. And therefore, it won't create a higher price.
Sorry dude. But you shouldn't even need to know basic economics to know your statement is retarded. Why don't you expand your circular logic a bit?
Lower price --> Higher demand --> Higher price --> Lower demand --> Lower price --> Higher demand --> ETC FOR INFINITY
/the more you know
//doesn't like people who think they're educated, but completely ignorant - madcat033, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4Oh, and furthermore, price is a function of supply and demand. It is an output, not an input. So, changes in price don't change demand. Changes in demand and supply change the PRICE.
So the "lower price" that the article talks about, and that you cite, is the RESULT of the change in supply/demand because of Congress' legislation. It is already the output. And obviously, if you plug the output back into the function as an input, you'll get an infinite loop, which is what happened with your retarded logic. - coov, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0I get what he's saying, if we force the price of fuel to be lower, it will increase demand, which will increase price. That's all... When the price increases, the demand will lower once again and then it will be at equilibrium once again, which will probably be around 3.50 gallon of gas if we're lucky. This would only be a temporary fix to the problem. The only way to fix this problem is by increasing supply, not by regulating the commanding heights of the world's economy, which we don't even produce. Unfortunately we're in the position where we're dependent on Saudi oil, they control the flow of the world's oil, (every other OPEC country is already pumping at full capacity) and until they are at 100% output, or the price drops back down to $1 per gallon of gasoline, I will not be satisfied.
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -2/+5if that logic were true then everything would go up in value exponentially since higher price = lower price. Think about it. When the price of desktop memory plummets, there might be a higher demand for it, but it also encourages the price to lower, not raise.
- axiomata, on 06/25/2008, -13/+26The only thing worse than $4 gas is $2 gas. This would make things worse. Of course that's what congress likes to do.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/25/2008, -4/+26Yeah that would be awful. I hated having disposable income before...
- Dauntless1, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3Yeah, but just like telecom companies that had disposable income that should have gone into their infrastructure but ended up in their pockets yours went where? Into a fund for an electric car? Into an alternative energy source as if you cared about your family's future? Or into a steak dinner at Outback? Life sucks, now we all have to pay to fix it. Cause somewhere along the line in America it became smart to live 65 miles one way from where you work, and of course you can't get to work comfortably in anything less than a full blown SUV at 9 miles to the gallon. Wait, that almost seems like people screwed themselves over party, doesn't it? But that's OK. The oil companies are fully capable of making you look stupid. Think it's not you? Send me a pic where Exxon Mobile has a gun to anyones head while they're signing for a new Denali.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3I've had a Prius since 2001 when gas was well under $3 so don't lecture me about a 65 mile commute in a 9mpg SUV. My disposible income went primary into savings. Only a trickle is going into savings now and I'm not feasting on Outback steaks. And it's not just gas, have you seen the price of groceries lately? They all blame high gas prices driving up the costs of shipping stuff.
- Dauntless1, on 06/26/2008, -10/+3Yeah, but just like telecom companies that had disposable income that should have gone into their infrastructure but ended up in their pockets yours went where? Into a fund for an electric car? Into an alternative energy source as if you cared about your family's future? Or into a steak dinner at Outback? Life sucks, now we all have to pay to fix it. Cause somewhere along the line in America it became smart to live 65 miles one way from where you work, and of course you can't get to work comfortably in anything less than a full blown SUV at 9 miles to the gallon. Wait, that almost seems like people screwed themselves over party, doesn't it? But that's OK. The oil companies are fully capable of making you look stupid. Think it's not you? Send me a pic where Exxon Mobile has a gun to anyones head while they're signing for a new Denali.
- FukUrCouch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2What's worst, $2 gas or a 10% increase on all products you buy because transportation is too expensive? Yeah lets makes things worst by lowering prices on everything else...
- axiomata, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4$2 gas means no incentive to buy a more efficient vehicle. It means an increase in demand. More carbon emissions. More dependence on unstable suppliers. Less time to develop alternative energy sources. It means the potential of shortages, waiting in line to fill your tank.
Yes, $4 gas hurts. But the long run alternative hurts more. Speculation is naturally rationing a limited resource. Speculators know that the emerging economies of the world will not stop increasing their demand. Buy buying futures to meet a future demand speculators are risking their money anticipating that the situation is going to get worse in terms of inflation and supply/demand. I will take their opinion over the bureaucrats in Washington who think gas' "natural" price is only $2.
There's a chapter in Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson which ought to be required reading for politicians who think intervention has no unintended consequences.- anubis2night, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1To have an incentive to purchase a new vehicle there needs to be money to afford the new vehicle first. While lower gas prices would make a dent in fuel savings, it doesn't have to be the case. Proper positioning both by the media and the government to encourage better fuel economy both with consumers and big business would go a long way as would promoting conservation. We did it during WWII and look what it did for our country. We came out a major industrial nation. It was no accident, our culture at the time was to purchase into America with bonds and we recycles both metals and other goods. We reused items rather than make use of disposables and we shifted our culture to a harder work ethic. Today's problems are no less daunting than those of WWII and yet we have yet to see anyone want to roll up their sleeves and make the changes to fix our nation, and who could really blame them. The first time anyone starts to point out that change is needed and makes the suggestion that we work hard and tighten our belts for a decade or so, and people start complaining like mad. They can't see the forest thru the trees...
- tr3y, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0Do you water your plants with Brawndo?
- kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1WEll yea because the US economy really can handle gas when it reaches $6 a gallon. WAke up and realize that will kill our economy because trust me on this. A large majority of people won't be able to afford to drive themselves to work because it might start to cost more than their paycheck to get to work. That means people buying less etc etc.
People are already buying less, and saving more, but what can you do about gas as it goes up and up and up? Not much because you need it. It's an inelastic good, and I think most of you pseudo economist miss that point. - tehhowch, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The US needs to tax gasoline more. Yeah, I said it. Tax it more, and pump the revenue into alternative energy research. Or create import quotas.
Anyone who has ever seen supply & demand examples knows exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, I realize the demand elasticity is quite low right now. But you and I also know that elasticities increase in the long run.
Oh what the ***** is the point. Congress doesn't know what it's doing, neither does the President, and at this rate, I'll never live to see a zombie apocalypse.- TheMidnight, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1In that case, you'll be a zombie.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 06/25/2008, -4/+26Yeah that would be awful. I hated having disposable income before...
- kakapu4u, on 06/25/2008, -3/+19But it's not just Americans who are speculating... It's not like miraculously (tragically?) making oil speculation illegal in the United States will eliminate speculation in the market. I mean come on.
It may be illegal for United States citizens to travel to Cuba, but it's no problem if you go through another country first. Same deal. If you really want to do it, you can. - ColonelJessup, on 06/25/2008, -13/+141Here we go again with the digg.com economic professors....................
- Jones82, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6Well if the "professional" economists can't even agree with each other what's the harm with us speculating?
- Pixelpaws, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Because they have several years experience in the field and, while they don't necessarily have any absolute answers, they at least can make informed ideas.
- Olfster, on 06/26/2008, -8/+2I love comments like this. The so called experts are all morons with theories and reasoning that play out nothing as they anticipate. I liken it to a so called "Internet Security Expert" touting how you are secure if you do/use XYZ. Some expert. First thing they should say is if your on the Internet you are NOT secure. Same with economists. First thing they should say is most everything they give advice on will never hold out to be true. My dart board is a better predictor than any economics professor. And I would place my bet on a digg.com economic professor over my dart board, although not by much.
- StingingNettle, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2Aren't you the same guy who posts this in about every other business and finance topic that makes it to the front?
Give it a rest. - farfegnugen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Hey, hey. I'm in the process of getting a degree from said professors. You can't get better than the wisdom of the internet.
- Jones82, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6Well if the "professional" economists can't even agree with each other what's the harm with us speculating?
- Spartanious, on 06/25/2008, -3/+8This was on NPR last night. While it sounds like a great idea,..... probably nothing will come out of it.
- Crimsoneer, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3Yup, cos it ignores common sense economics, like the fact that we aren't producing any more fuel, despite are best efforts. Speculators or not, we are using a lot more fuel, and thats only going to get worse.
- computerguydk, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4You do realize that demand is actually down for oil right? It is estimated that by 2009, demand levels in the U.S. will reach the same as they were in 2004.
- superkendall, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2That may be, but it doesn't matter as the phrase "we are using a lot more fuel" is totally accurate when you look at the WORLD. If a lot of people in China want gas (hint: they do) it means higher prices here even if our own consumption remains static or falls.
What does make gas cheaper here, is to produce said gas here (more refineries) and to produce more oil here (offshore/ANWAR drilling). In particular, building more refineries here would help a ton. - chantron, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2@superkendall
Get your head out of your ass man!
"Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_d ...
- superkendall, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2That may be, but it doesn't matter as the phrase "we are using a lot more fuel" is totally accurate when you look at the WORLD. If a lot of people in China want gas (hint: they do) it means higher prices here even if our own consumption remains static or falls.
- computerguydk, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4You do realize that demand is actually down for oil right? It is estimated that by 2009, demand levels in the U.S. will reach the same as they were in 2004.
- Crimsoneer, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3Yup, cos it ignores common sense economics, like the fact that we aren't producing any more fuel, despite are best efforts. Speculators or not, we are using a lot more fuel, and thats only going to get worse.
- spunkmyer, on 06/25/2008, -6/+7So Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are two of the largest holders of commodity future contracts, even more than the oil companies. This is good for the market how?
- tsol26, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0they increase the liquidity of the market and actually decrease the volatility.
- bstew22, on 06/25/2008, -10/+2the first 15 comments are like novels.
- ileftfark, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Someone hasn't been taking their Ritalin!
- bstew22, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1lol. made me laugh.
- Akronos, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Novels? Let me take a guess: you must be the type of person who writes in the book section of your myspace or facebook that you don't read along with a comment like, "who reads?", while extolling the "virtues" of your willful illiteracy. Am I right?
- TomJohn, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1whats extolling?
- bstew22, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Yes ABOSOLUTELY correct, sir! You got me!
Do you yell at people who say at a baseball game "Wow that guy throws pitches like a bullet!!!"
OMFG! NOT EVEN CLOSE!! BULLETS HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF SPEEDS, BUT TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE A .22caliber TRAVELS ANYWHERE FROM 1200-1500 m/s! THAT GUY COULDNT KILL A BIRD...oh...wait...guess he could.
just a casual lame comment by myself.... but i iz iliterit two!
Edit: oh noes! i wrotz a novul!
- Swordman554, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Wow, I know what you mean. They are War and Peace all over again!
/sarcasm
- ileftfark, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Someone hasn't been taking their Ritalin!
- matrim2217, on 06/25/2008, -11/+3Digging in the hopes that this could actually happen
- ileftfark, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4I prefer to pursue all my activist agendas by clicking a Web 2.0 button as well.
- mshtml, on 06/25/2008, -5/+26Waging war on the Middle East and threatening a nuclear first strike on Iran is the reason speculators are driving prices higher. Congress needs to act alright, it needs to stop funding this insane foreign policy.
- MikeFallopian, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1When Israel ran military simulation exercises for an Iran strike last week, oil prices dropped. Our Iran policy is idiotic, but it's not the cause of expensive oil.
- mshtml, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Oil was $27 a barrel before we invaded Iraq and destroyed that country's production, stability and security. I cannot comprehend anyone believing the instability we're causing in the Middle East has no effect on oil prices. An attack on Iran will send oil up another $100/barrel at a minimum.
You are right about one thing, oil did drop last week. It dropped a whole 0.2%. What a bargain.- Zempz, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1slippery slope fallacy is fun and informative
- MikeFallopian, on 06/26/2008, -5/+2Prewar Iraqi oil production was a tiny percentage of global production, and you are blaming the war (which I agree was a bad idea) for current high oil prices? How about increasing demand from India and China? How about the bootstrap effect of speculative investment? By your logic, oil prices should have skyrocketed before the war on Iraq, and should now be returning to normal as production has resumed to near or above prewar levels. Except, in your world it apparently makes sense that a (very small) supply shock in early 2003 should double the price of oil in early 2008.
- dagamer34, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Not the war itself but the US meddling in the Middle East more than it should be.
- mshtml, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Why would oil prices skyrocket before the war when every tv station, newspaper article and finical magazine in 2003 insisted the war was going to be a slam dunk and be over in 3-6 months? I actually read articles in 2003 that said oil prices would go down because of the war. The war was treated like a sporting event the family could enjoy gathered around the television.
Oil has risen steadily for the past 5 years while India and China are always blamed for rising prices. There may be some increased demand but the price of oil has gone up by a factor of 5. Despite what your government might have you believe, these weren't third world countries 5 years ago who just discovered the combustion engine and put a massive new demand on the market.
If Iran shuts down the Hormuz strait in retaliation for any attack all bets are off as to how high oil goes. If that happens we'll all be reminded by the nightly news how much oil China is using. - kuzotz, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Zemp that isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Nothing he said was false. He used real evidence, and he is correct if country A produces oil and country A becomes instable then oil prices for up because the risk of getting said oil rises at the same rate the supply of oil lowers, and with a low quantity supplied resource the price goes up!!
- Acolyte357, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1@Kuzotz
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is one of the classical informal fallacies. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later without establishing or quantifying the relevant contingencies.
Your facts can be valid, and you can still have a slippery slope.
- mshtml, on 06/26/2008, -1/+9Oil was $27 a barrel before we invaded Iraq and destroyed that country's production, stability and security. I cannot comprehend anyone believing the instability we're causing in the Middle East has no effect on oil prices. An attack on Iran will send oil up another $100/barrel at a minimum.
- MikeFallopian, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1When Israel ran military simulation exercises for an Iran strike last week, oil prices dropped. Our Iran policy is idiotic, but it's not the cause of expensive oil.
- robEstyles, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1We dont even need this to happen we just need more articles like this from analysts, cause then the speculators will think its going to happen and lower the price.
- j.carcinogen, on 06/25/2008, -2/+14Gas isn't the only thing that has risen in price. It's called stagflation... the media is just focusing on the gas to keep people ignorant of the decline of the US dollar.
- thedoomsong, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Yeah, because the media is part of some sort of money-hording Treasury conspiracy. Right. The reason the US dollar is going down is because things are costing more than they used to.
Same number of products x inflated dollar values = more dollars, and therefore less worth to each dollar. - dandiz, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0stagflation means unemployment and inflation at the same time. your definition is a little off. the media is focusing on oil (or oil supply shocks) because the price of oil affects greatly the cost of doing business, which in turn affects the prices of all commodities.
- thedoomsong, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Yeah, because the media is part of some sort of money-hording Treasury conspiracy. Right. The reason the US dollar is going down is because things are costing more than they used to.
- pintomp3, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1which is why they aren't acting.
- xenoc1de, on 06/25/2008, -3/+23Funny I was just talking about this subject when this pops onto the front page.
It is pathetic that the American people aren't educated enough to look past John McCain's pandering to see that his energy (drilling) plans will not affect anything, due to the fact that it is not supply and demand driving our oil prices up.- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -8/+7Supply and demand have zero effect on prices. Right.
- xenoc1de, on 06/25/2008, -1/+11Do you not read the articles on digg? Economists say that the price of a barrel of crude should be around $60 due to supply and demand, not the price we currently have.
- jnava121, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4dugg for sarcasm!
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -2/+10no dummy, supply and demand are not whats driving oil prices. Read what he wrote and do your research and you will find he is right.
Americans now are driving less and consuming less oil than they have in a long time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.h ...
demand is decreasing, supply is increasing, but the prices are still going up. The oil companies are sitting on 80 something million acres of oil leases that they have not asked to tap into. The only oil lease requested for in the last 10 years was granted. This is not an issue of environmentalists blocking drilling requests.
the oil companies want the land to hoard oil like gold in a vault so they can secure future profits. If they needed to pump more oil, they have all the leases and land they need, but capacity is meeting demand.
Attn Econ 101 digg professors, this is not a supply and demand issue, get over yourselves thanks.- dagamer34, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2We should not forget that the US is not the only country that uses oil. China and India are having a huge effect on prices too.
- provost, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1yah, thats definitely a valid point that they are. I am not entirely certain how they factor in to the entire equation, but i do know that we get 80% from canada, pump several percent in the us, and get something like 10 or 12% from abroad, so I know they cant be overwhelmingly factored in, but you are right.
Also, foreign markets tend to follow the US market. When we dip, there is an echo of everyone else dipping. Same with rising. I am definitely not an economics genius, I just know that there are definite problems in the US that could easily drive the cost of a barrel down.
- Olfster, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Even Enron knew it was all about supply and demand. Why can't everyone else buy the kool aid as well?
- rorster, on 06/26/2008, -4/+6Actually it is pathetic how little you know or care to know of economics.
Warren Buffet (who even supports Obama) tells us today that it is all about supply and demand:
http://digg.com/politics/Warren_Buffet_Speculation ...
Read and grow as a person. - JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5So when oil jumps in price because an oil rig is attacked it has nothing to do with supply?
You're a ***** stupid *****, and all that is wrong with this country. - tmschmal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0First off, I support drilling in ANWR and off of our coasts. The government needs to let the free market operate. It's private enterprise that always comes up with the best solutions. Increased drilling will increase supply, which should drop prices a bit, but not much. More drilling in the US, will also send a message to OPEC and teh speculators that we are actually going to do something about our energy needs. That will drop the price of oil even more.
Another big benefit of more domestic drilling is that the oil companies, and all the smaller companies that build the oil rigs and other equipment will be more profitable. I know I have a significant percentage of my 401K is in energy(oil) stocks, and I imagine that if you take a look at your mutual funds you will find something similar. This means that even if more drilling doesn't lower gas prices much, more of the money you are spending will stay in the country and come back to you as a return on your investments.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -8/+7Supply and demand have zero effect on prices. Right.
- ileftfark, on 06/25/2008, -5/+2So all we have to do is convince rich people to stop being so rich all the time? Brilliant!
- BlackJackJester, on 06/25/2008, -6/+14High gas prices has its plus side though. It makes people drive less, and pushes innovation and marketability of renewable energies a lot faster. If oil went back to $2, we would almost be taking a step backwards, only delaying the inevitable. While I would like some relief from the high price of gas, I find myself driving more efficiently, and also arranging errands better to avoid multiple trips - which benefits everyone.
- Xihix, on 06/25/2008, -6/+8***** quit it with your ecosystem *****.
- EricSchC1, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7Benefit? Everyone? Commie!
/s - superkendall, on 06/26/2008, -3/+5True to a certain extent, but if gas prices rise a lot more than the economy starts tanking and THEN there's not much money to go around for research.
- JointVenture, on 06/26/2008, -3/+4So what you're saying is you lack discipline and are naturally a