Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Don Mashak
1409 Followers
Jason Leopold
1301 Followers
gamingforever
8912 Followers
Miguel Lopez
27074 Followers
Power Of Digg
381 Followers
Savvy Wabbit
3456 Followers
pinnacleoflogicMay 15, 2011
well it's not exactly a secret that that the price of oil is higher than it should be.
sloppyjoes7May 15, 2011
"it's not exactly a secret that that the price of oil is higher than it should be."
The price it "should" be?
That price is assuming:
No wars.
No turmoil.
No hurricanes.
No earthquakes.
No revolutions.
No collusion.
No more drilling bans.
No additional taxation.
Etc.
Since most these things are inevitable, the price is higher than it "otherwise" would be. The price it "should" be is only in a perfect world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMay 15, 2011
despite all of that, oil prices shouldn't have changed that drastically, that's the whole point.
when the conflict in libya started, gas prices raised by 20%, yet libya only accounts for 5% of the US market. at best, the price should have risen by the percentage gap they had to fill (5%), and even then that's a big fat lie, since all you have to do is offset the need on other countries, which have the capacity to provide what we need. meaning gas prices didn't even need to change at all.
beyond that, the price raises on gas come straight from the pump, meaning something that took X amount to process/transport, now costs more than the original cost of the final product, with the justification of that it will cost more on the new supply they are currently processing.
so the point is, gas prices shouldn't raise until they're restocked with new gas based on the new prices of production.
if you still don't understand it, this should clear it up...
let's say gas costs 50 cent to process per gallon. you buy it for $3.00 a gallon. now let's say prices raise and gas now costs 70 cent to process per gallon. except the gas in your pump was based on that 50 cent per gallon production cost, and you're instead paying that 70 cent cost. why? just 'cause. so gas that should cost $3.00 no matter what (and in all fairness), ends up costing $3.20 even though all the costs associated with that batch points to $3.00.
in essence, you're paying for what gas will cost later, not what it actually costs at the time of purchase or production. this has a compound effect every time they raise the price, making butt loads of money out of thin air without any good justification in the immediate price raise.
sloppyjoes7May 15, 2011
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your math is terrible.
"when the conflict in libya started, gas prices raised by 20%, yet libya only accounts for 5% of the US market. at best, the price should have risen by the percentage gap they had to fill (5%)"
No. Your math is utterly incorrect. By that logic, if we lost 99% of all oil production, the price of gas would not even double. (It would increase 99%, making the price 1.99 times greater.) That is ludicrous, and proves your example utterly flawed.
"even then that's a big fat lie, since all you have to do is offset the need on other countries, which have the capacity to provide what we need."
No, we can't suddenly produce 2,000,000 barrels a day out of nowhere. Where do you think we're hiding 2,000,000 barrels a day?
"gas prices shouldn't raise until they're restocked with new gas based on the new prices of production. "
Wrong. Like many or most commodities, gas prices are based on the cost of REPLACEMENT. It's a perfectly reasonable and common practice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMay 15, 2011
libya was a supply problem, not a production cost adjustment. supplies can be had elsewhere, and it's not like we bring in only enough oil every day for that single day's needs.
"No, we can't suddenly produce 2,000,000 barrels a day out of nowhere. Where do you think we're hiding 2,000,000 barrels a day?"
the US currently has the world largest strategic oil reserve, with 730 million barrels in stock.
sloppyjoes7May 15, 2011
"supplies can be had elsewhere"
Like I asked, where?
"the US currently has the world largest strategic oil reserve"
That's a reserve, for national emergencies only. It's not an unused "production" source.
Lastly, do you concede that your math is off?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
effyochickenMay 15, 2011
His math is off only because it takes into account the only reasonable range. Losing 99 percent of the oil? Losing 50% would require a different equation, involving squares and wars. 5% is low enough to be managed by a reasonable economic concept.
And it's speculation. Speculation is FLAWED BY ITS NATURE.
""supplies can be had elsewhere"
Like I asked, where?"
Again, we're talking about 5% of the world's oil supply that contributes maybe 1% of our oil. You do realize Libya isn't the only oil producer, right?
If you want to know why the price isn't what it should be, you could look at the corn market in the US. They need to do speculation as well to manage crop loss, weather, etc.. but their speculation doesn't lead to a price that is 40% higher than the cost of production. Why is that?
Because they can't. People can just buy a different, cheaper brand, or simply eat a different type of food. Food is inelastic like gas, but unlike gas there are other viable options.
You ever tried shopping around for gas to get the best price?
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"Again, we're talking about 5% of the world's oil supply that contributes maybe 1% of our oil. You do realize Libya isn't the only oil producer, right?"
Oil is a fungible commodity. The price in China affects the price here. If you're confused, look up "fungible."
"People can just buy a different, cheaper brand, or simply eat a different type of food. Food is inelastic like gas, but unlike gas there are other viable options."
Of course there are other options. Solar energy, hydrogen, coal, thermonuclear, hydroelectric, etc. We just use gasoline because it's the cheapest option. If gas cost too much, we'd all switch to electric cars, public transportation, working from home, etc.
"You ever tried shopping around for gas to get the best price?"
Yes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
extremephobiaMay 16, 2011
"Of course there are other options. Solar energy, hydrogen, coal, thermonuclear, hydroelectric, etc. We just use gasoline because it's the cheapest option. If gas cost too much, we'd all switch to electric cars, public transportation, working from home, etc."
yes, but by the same token I could just as easily shop around and buy broccoli instead of corn. I believe he meant buying the same product from a different source, not actually buying something different.
And if I understand the definition of "fungible" then a fungible good is one that can be considered equal if it's properties are also equal. For instance, if China's oil creates the same amount of energy for the same volume as Texas oil, then it is considered fungible. This means that if one's price goes up, the other SHOULD go up if the prices are based on the same things. It doesn't seem to mean that the prices actually effect each other, especially since things like cost of transportation or production could come into play. The two barrels are fungible because they are essentially equivalent, not because their prices are in any way intertwined.
For instance, if you are in Texas and you have two barrels of oil that are unlabeled, highly fungible, but one is from China and one is from Texas, you could choose either and it wouldn't matter. However, if you had to PAY for one or the other, then clearly the one from Texas would be cheaper.
Of course, I'm not an economist or anything so my understanding of "fungible" could be terribly off.
And that doesn't have anything to do with the actual discussion. Math Demand/Supply = cost. 1/1=1, 2/1=2 (demand is twice supply, cost doubles). In this case, demand is still 100%, supply is 95%. 100/95 = 1.0526. It's an increase of 5.26%. Yes, I know my math is flawed but my point is that even when the costs increase rapidly (for instance, supply is 25% of demand, costs are 4 times). And again, that is the cost of just the crude oil itself (plus any used for transportation) because that's the only thing in limited supply. The costs of drills, rigs, trucks and boats did not increase because of Libya. So this estimated 5% increase is not even an increase in the overall cost, just the cost of the actual oil itself.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
extremephobia,
You understand fungibility well. Excellent analysis. The only thing I'd add is that transportation costs of oil are relatively low, when compared to costs of extraction and refining. However, it does explain the difference in costs between many regions.
"In this case, demand is still 100%, supply is 95%. 100/95 = 1.0526. It's an increase of 5.26%."
That's pretty much how I would have started when analyzing it. However, as oil demand is relatively slow to react to changes, a sudden interruption in supply will cause prices to increase sharply, until the market adjusts.
Note: It does adjust. Prices go up, but they also come down. The marginal cost will steadily go up over the long-term, but spikes in price have always dropped back down.
flamesniperMay 16, 2011
why were you dugg down? you pointed some very obvious flaws with the logic of not-so-unstoppable unstoppable intellect (although i agree with his conclusion)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
I'm not sure. Probably because it's fashionable to hate oil companies, so anyone defending them must be hated, regardless of reason or logic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
timfrostMay 16, 2011
This exactly; anyone who's studied the slightest bit of economics, or even just done some mild research on google, will agree with you. The only reason anyone argues against is because they want everything they aren't in possession of to be free, and everything they are to be expensive.
Plus, you all seem to be American, think how us Brits feel on petrol prices. Prices hit £1.339/litre here this week. That's $9.86 a gallon. Admittedly, it's mostly tax, but that's still a much higher price than most countries pay, and I'm a 19 year old student and manage fine with it, because that's a justifiable price.
supportthismikeMay 16, 2011
At this point, who cares about bad math. The price should not have gone up, period.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
People keep using the word "should."
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
You are assuming that if the worst happen in Libya, it would affect only the oil supply from Libya. That is not true.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
It's funny how right wingers always know what someone living below the poverty line "shouldn't" be getting and you people always know that the ultra wealthy are somehow being squeezed. The pricing for oil is far from transparent. You can't prove oil price spikes are linked (in any rational way) to the events you listed. And you corporatists love it that way. That's why you hate science so much and it's why you people hate education in general. Facts are your enemies.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"It's funny how right wingers always know what someone living below the poverty line "shouldn't" be getting and you people always know that the ultra wealthy are somehow being squeezed."
The wealthy do pay taxes, and the poor are net tax receivers. Everyone knows this. What's your point?
"You can't prove oil price spikes are linked (in any rational way) to the events you listed."
I absolutely can prove it without question. There's been a price spike after every major interruption in the oil supply.
"That's why you hate science so much and it's why you people hate education in general. Facts are your enemies."
I dare you to challenge anything I say using facts and logic.
effyochickenMay 16, 2011
"There's been a price spike after every major interruption in the oil supply."
Also before every change in the season and every minor or even non-existent disruption. Oh and don't forget election seasons and recessions.
Just about every excuse in the book has led to a spike. Why? Because they can and it's good profits.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"Because they can and it's good profits."
Who profits, exactly? I ask because many of these spikes are caused by speculators. They buy oil futures, which work a lot like stocks.
From 2007 to 2008, the price of oil was cut in HALF. The speculators who bought high lost HALF of their investment.
You see, you cannot pay attention only to the spikes. You must include the drops as well. So, logically, if you blame speculators for the high gas prices, then blame them for the cheap prices as well.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
"You see, you cannot pay attention only to the spikes. You must include the drops as well. So, logically, if you blame speculators for the high gas prices, then blame them for the cheap prices as well."
you've already fallen for it hook line and sinker. you're soo used to it that you accept it and forget the past.
you say it as if these people are playing with their initial start money, when they're playing with profits of profits of profits.
by what standard is a 'drop' that causes them to lose money? a gallon of gas used to cost a little over a dollar in 2000. now it's 4 times that or more. 4x inflation, over the last decade. they would only stand to lose any money gained if gas dropped back to its original prices. they aren't losing money when prices drop, they're just making a bit less which is still enormous profit. and it would take a very long time of low prices to 'lose' all they've gained in that time.
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"they aren't losing money when prices drop, they're just making a bit less which is still enormous profit."
True.
But you're comparing a low spot to a high spot.
Around 2000, oil prices were unusually low.
Around now, oil prices are unusually high.
But overall, the price always goes up over time. That's how most things of this nature work.
mike2u88May 21, 2011
The sad fact is the government makes more off a gallon of gas then the oil companies or anyone else for that matter.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
"The wealthy do pay taxes, and the poor are net tax receivers. Everyone knows this. What's your point?"
--The wealthy do have the ability to shield their wealth in overseas accounts. The poor do not. Everyone knows this. And my point should have been obvious. It's in your interest to pretend to be ignorant of all the facts.
"I absolutely can prove it without question. There's been a price spike after every major interruption in the oil supply."
--It rains whenever I leave my umbrella at home too so is that ironclad proof that I can forecast the weather? The mere fact that a price spike coincides with an interruption in supply does not by itself prove a cause and effect relationship between the two events. You can't prove that unless you can eliminate all the other variables.
"I dare you to challenge anything I say using facts and logic."
--After you...
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"The wealthy do have the ability to shield their wealth in overseas accounts. The poor do not."
The wealthy can lessen their taxable income, to pay LESS tax, but still a sizable amount. Meanwhile, the poor pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Why would they move their money overseas, when it would reduce their taxable income from 0% to 0%?
"And my point should have been obvious."
Your phrasing was very poor. I can only guess what you were getting at.
"The mere fact that a price spike coincides with an interruption in supply does not by itself prove a cause and effect relationship between the two events."
When it happens many times in a row, in a perfect correlation, over several decades, any reasonable person is convinced.
You know, you challenge my logic, then insinuate that the poor are paying taxes, when they are net tax receivers. It's somewhat difficult trying to follow your train of thought.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
"The wealthy can lessen their taxable income, to pay LESS tax, but still a sizable amount. "
--You're pretty comical… They can "lessen their taxable income" huh? Why not stop with the word games and just admit that the wealthy can *obfuscate the law and avoid paying their full tax liability* in ways that those who have far less money and power can't? That the wealthy pay "a sizable amount" doesn't mean they always pay what they are supposed to pay by law and it doesn't mean (as your comments imply) that they pay too much. Stop trying to sugarcoat the facts.
"Meanwhile, the poor pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Why would they move their money overseas, when it would reduce their taxable income from 0% to 0%?"
--There you go again-- pretending that income tax liability alone tells us exactly what any one person or economic group contributes to the economy. Your arguments don't acknowledge that the poor contribute to the economy significantly in other ways and your simply focusing with laser precision on the poor won't change the fact that the extremely wealthy don't always pay what they owe. Stop trying this line of reasoning. It's not working.
"Your phrasing was very poor. I can only guess what you were getting at."
--You really do yourself no favors pretending this is more complicated than it is. All you're doing (and failing miserably at) is rationlizing extreme greed by the wealthy and corporations. That's all.
"When it happens many times in a row, in a perfect correlation, over several decades, any reasonable person is convinced."
--Reasonable day school enrollees might be convinced (maybe). Where did you study economics, science, statistics, reasoning and logic, etc? In your research (which I'm sure was extensive) did you also find that demand always increased or even stayed the same when supply was interrupted? Is the interruption of supply by itself the only conceivable reason that prices would spike?
"You know, you challenge my logic, then insinuate that the poor are paying taxes, when they are net tax receivers. It's somewhat difficult trying to follow your train of thought."
--I'm sorry you're easily confused. Maybe the problem is that you have really poor reasoning and logic?
sloppyjoes7May 16, 2011
"They can "lessen their taxable income" huh? Why not stop with the word games..."
Deductions and the like lower a person's taxable income. That's what it's called, so don't blame me.
"That the wealthy pay "a sizable amount" doesn't mean they always pay what they are supposed to pay by law..."
Both rich and poor people try to hide money and lie on forms. Who says the rich do it more often than the poor? I know plenty of poor people who get paid under the table "tax-free."
"There you go again-- pretending that income tax liability alone tells us exactly what any one person or economic group contributes to the economy."
We're not talking about contributions to the economy. You've suddenly brought up an entirely separate point. You were talking about taxes.
"All you're doing (and failing miserably at) is rationlizing extreme greed by the wealthy and corporations."
I have done no such thing. I don't know what you're talking about.
"-Reasonable day school enrollees might be convinced (maybe). Where did you study economics, science, statistics, reasoning and logic, etc?"
College.
" Is the interruption of supply by itself the only conceivable reason that prices would spike?"
It's not the only conceivable reason, but it's clearly the most likely. The data suggest that very strongly.
"Maybe the problem is that you have really poor reasoning and logic?"
No.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
"Deductions and the like lower a person's taxable income. That's what it's called, so don't blame me. "
--I'm just pointing out that you refuse to acknowledge that the wealthy have lots of unscrupulous ways to avoid paying taxes.
"Both rich and poor people try to hide money and lie on forms."
--Why are you so preoccupied with the poor?
" Who says the rich do it more often than the poor?"
--So now you're admitting that you're condemning the poor as the worse offenders without having fully researched the issue?
"I know plenty of poor people who get paid under the table "tax-free."
--Right. We've established that it drives you crazy when poor people get an extra crumb. How do you feel about people who have everything skirting our tax laws? Does that keep you up at night too? Exactly…It doesn't.
"We're not talking about contributions to the economy. You've suddenly brought up an entirely separate point. You were talking about taxes."
--I'm still talking about taxes. You're demonizing poor people who don't pay income taxes almost as if this makes them unfit to live.
"I have done no such thing. I don't know what you're talking about."
--Of course you do. You can barely contain your hatred towards poor people who don't pay taxes but you go out of your way to avoid saying anything negative about wealthy tax cheats.
"It's not the only conceivable reason, but it's clearly the most likely. The data suggest that very strongly."
--Clear to whom? It's clear to me that oil company profits soar when supply is interrupted anywhere for any reason. It's also clear to me that it's in the oil industry's interest to protect their profits and that it's in their interest to keep the their inner workings as murky as possible.
4Herp2Derp0May 15, 2011
Yet we still refuse to legalize the cultivation of hemp which could replace crude oil in many, many aspects of our everyday life such as oils, plastics, rubbers, and fuels.
pdemmertMay 15, 2011
i wonder whyyyyy
WhenItMattersMostMay 16, 2011
You too? Well Isaac Newton once wondered why an apple fell from a tree.
-Follow me people for the funniest comments ever. (please see about line)
freakazoidzaMay 17, 2011
However, when it came to marijuana and hemp prohibition, Rockefeller took a different stance. He was a known supporter of hemp prohibition along with Harry J. Anslinger, the United States First "drug czar" and William Randolph Hearst, well known media mogul. As to be expected, Hearst sympathized with the drug czar in his war against marijuana. Hearst's paper empire, which included hundreds of acres of timber forests, was threatened by the renewable resource of hemp that could be re-grown yearly, unlike Hearst's timber. In his newspapers, Hearst published many of Anslinger’s fabricated stories, aiding the anti-marijuana movement that eventually led to its prohibition in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act (Wikipedia). Rockefeller had his interests in oil, and after founding Standard Oil in 1870, soared to become the first U.S. dollar billionaire, and Standard Oil was even convicted of monopolistic practices and broken up in 1911. There seems no way that hemp could have had a chance when the media, the government, and the oil industry were swiftly making little room for hemp to survive.
Hemp is not only in direct competition with timber and petroleum, but also with many other industries throughout the world. Hemp offers wholesome and nutritious foodstuffs such as edible oil from the seeds, which are also used for making chocolate bars and other foods; renewable fiber for clothing and building. The original Levi jeans were made from hemp but lasted too long to be commercially viable; high grade papers, such as those used for bank notes, tissues, hand towels, and tea bags, where strength when wet is critical, and so much more. Cannabis is a medicine that was created by nature, producing powerful documented results without the side effects of the manufactured chemicals that the drug companies peddle during every television commercial break. Cannabis can even be a nice after work treat in the same way that a glass of beer or wine is enjoyed after a long day at the office.
pdemmertMay 17, 2011
lol at good answers to rhetorical questions :DD
win.
djguerrillaMay 15, 2011
We buy about 42% of our daily oil from OPEC so I wonder what else is causing the false elevation in price (other countries basing their price off of OPEC's?) ? They do price fix, which is wrong, but they do it in theocratic/monarchist countries where there is little accountability or fairness on any issue, and price fixing schemes that benefit their country are obviously accepted by their governments. The answer (I think) is to wean ourselves off of their 42% and not give them a dime any longer. But, with gas, oil, and car companies as close to our politicians as it stands now, this stands little chance of occurring anytime soon (because of soft money)
rudegarMay 15, 2011
"(other countries basing their price off of OPEC's?)"
yes that's how supply and demand works
lets say I'm a oil producing company
opec raise the price (they being a mayor player)
so do I keep selling at the price I find fair
or raise it along with them securing a bigger profit?
if you think keep the price fair
then I'm afraid you just lost your job as CEO of the oil company
the board wants profit and the CEO delivers
free market capitalism as we know and love it
colbeykorinMay 15, 2011
No, capitialism would work by having a bunch of smaller oil companies saying.
"$100 dollars a barrel!, well s**t , lets go drill like mad and find some more oil!"
Fast forward a year later, oil is at $40 dollars a barrel because so many people jumped on the drilling bandwagon.
Big oil is then forced to lower prices to compete
Why does this not happen?
Government puts so many restrictions on drilling that only the largest companies can do any drilling at all, and even they are heavily restricted, so no serious competion is happening.
So instead of capatilism, we're closer to a socialist model.
Unrestrain ALL the oil companies, and we'll be back to $40 dollar barrel an oil very fast.
JewstinMay 15, 2011
Or it could be that Big Corporations realize that they have a monopoly over oil, and the ability to collude on the price; in order to make more money. Then they send people to congress in order to pay out bribes; while the average US citizen is then forced to pay them subsides (Corporate welfare at its best) instead of actually using their tax money for things like education, infrastructure, paying down debt ect. Not to mention they probably have huge shares in companies like fox news; in order to use them to trick the half of the population who wouldn’t know any better into siding with them.
tekaninMay 15, 2011
Most drilling operations in the US are done by small oil companies...
kaelyiestaMay 16, 2011
A socialist model would have government running oil harvesting. What we have in the US is more economically fascistic. The government has 'oversight agencies' that serve both as a cover to appease voters into thinking we are being protected from the 'big bad greedy evil capitalists' as well as a standard way which the industry in question can bribe and collude with the state to get state protection in the form of tax money, monopoly privileges and so on.
Coincidentally, Galles just wrote a short piece on a particular oil company and how this process worked with them in particular. It puts some facts behind my assertions so I won't wast time hunting down examples myself. Please take a look, it goes into details that are unfamiliar to most everyone:
http://mises.org/daily/5274/100-Years-of-Myths-about-Standard-Oil
kamtsaMay 15, 2011
We rely on OPEC oil because we do not develop our own resources for political reasons and naive wishful thinking.
It is that simple.
kasha34May 15, 2011
It's like those stories about a homeless guy who dies. And they find a bankbook on him with hundreds of thousands of dollars in it. Why didn't he use the wealth he had?
Same with us. We have plenty of oil and natural gas. But the Democrats have made it hard to get it through the silly belief in global warming.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
flamesniperMay 15, 2011
Cause that's how the global marketplace works. You're right.
http://www.good.is/post/chart-even-more-proof-we-can-t-drill-our-way-to-lower-gas-prices/
kasha34May 15, 2011
It's called the LAW of supply and demand. There aren't any exceptions. If there's more oil for sale, the price will go down.
flamesniperMay 15, 2011
Did you even read the article? Whatever extra we could provide is such a tiny shrivel of the international market place that prices would not be impacted on any detectable level.
kasha34May 15, 2011
Ridiculous. Besides, when we license oil companies to drill on govt land it brings in money for state or federal govts. Billions.
Is there any other country that turns up it's nose at that kind of money?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterMay 15, 2011
Are you really that dumb? Did you not read rudegar's simple but to the point explanation? As long as we have a capitalist society/economy and as long as we don't have enough oil to cover ALL our needs, the price of oil will be strongly affected by world oil prices which is affected most by OPEC (since they control the most oil). Oil companies in the US will just raise prices if world oil prices rise...because if they don't, they would make more money selling overseas. Would you rather sell you oil at $70/barrel domestically when you can sell it in the world market at $105/barrel?
dauntless1May 15, 2011
Some people are just too stupid to understand that the "free market" is not a magic bullet that cures every economic woe. The fact is, just because you own a hammer, does not mean every problem is a nail.
And someday they will grow up and understand that.
kasha34May 16, 2011
They did "understand" that in the USSR and Cuba and Cambodia and Vietnam and N Korea and China.
kaelyiestaMay 16, 2011
That is funny. I say the exact same thing about statism.
An important difference is that the 'free market' is a near infinite number potential solutions to satisfy our desires.
daimposterMay 16, 2011
dauntless: and of course you h ave people that make a note about communist countries. They don't even understand what you described. You didn't' say "free market" doesn't work but just like every other type of economy, it has it drawbacks.
jodyrdavis537May 16, 2011
That is economically sound. Why would someone sell it for less than they can get for it from some place else. That is why it becomes even more important to find alternatives to importing oil from overseas or even buying from Canada and Mexico. If the rest of the world is willing to pay extra for it then let them, but we can be smart and decrease our need for it by using renewable energy sources like switchgrass for ethanol and algae for biodeisel as well as use plasma gasification for electrical energy generation and clean up our landfills. On top of that we can use electric cars, hybrid cars, pneumatic air cars, and hydrogen fuel cells.
syowareMay 15, 2011
The Democrats, huh? Is that why gas rose from $1.50 pre-Bush to over $4.00?
countess666May 15, 2011
if you had never bought from OPEC your own oil resources would have been exhausted already.
jagedlionMay 15, 2011
The country exporting the most oil to the US is Canada. OPEC is a huge worldwide market player, but if there are closer sources, it makes more sense to buy from there and let those closer to OPEC buy from them.
sutleyMay 15, 2011
There's no goddamn "volatility" in the market. This is an oligarchy of oil cartels price fixing on a global scale using "outside" speculation as a rationale to keep prices going up.
Obama says there's no magic bullet - I say there is. It's called an antitrust lawsuit launched on Exxon Mobil, on Royal Dutch Shell, on BP, and on every other oil empire. If Microsoft (LOL) and AT&T (LOL) had to be broken up, why not these companies?
rustymetalMay 16, 2011
^Truth, It's funny how many recent mergers of oil co in the past 20 years. Exxon/Mobile, BP/Amco, Chevron\Texaco, uhh the list is so long. All these company's used to be the same one. In 1911 the Standard Oil co was broken up into 20(?maybe more) different regional sellers. Which is the correct way gas should be sold in regional markets each having their own refinery.
That's what Rockafeller did, he bought out competition and shut down profitable refinery to create a fake market atmosphere. Not to mention that, there has not been significant improvement in the technology of the combustion engine in over 100 years. Other technology's have been created that have simply disappeared. There is no doubt that they stall technical advancement. Greed its corrupted every grain of our world today
kaelyiestaMay 16, 2011
A true investigation would have to expose collusion with the state. Oil contracts are awarded by political favoritism. Oil subsidies favor the largest companies. Oil regulations keep smaller competitors at bay. That is a significant incentive to avoid anything other than rhetoric against oil companies lest politicians expose their own vile behavior.
And as an aside, oil companies do not set prices. Prices are set by commodities markets and by political committees. If you want to blame who is responsible for these prices blame politicians and bank executives. There are certainly production inefficiencies that could be corrected to decrease costs a small amount, but this isn't the significant factor at all. The vast majority of the blame falls on manipulations of the trading market. Our stock markets and similar institutions have in the past 40 years become swamped with speculators who have no understanding of the markets but would otherwise lose that money to taxation. These systems have ceased to be rational investment trading centers.
Watch the following video for some facts, graphs and charts about some of the hidden costs of distorting trade incentives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF87sMjYlws
netantMay 16, 2011
The market collusion goes beyond the oil production companies. You must include investment banking firms like Goldman Sachs, because its commodity speculators that is driving the price beyond actual supply and demand.
The oil pig was telling the truth. There is more petroleum going into the US than is being consumed. You can generate more barrels of oil offshore or force OPEC to make more, but refining capacity is maxed, so available barrels of refined oil products are maxed. The US is currently exporting more oil than it is importing. Corporations make more money selling the refined product outside the US, than consuming it in the US at a lower price.
Between the devaluation of the US dollar (which all oil must be purchased at), and oil commodity speculators making the US customer pay for their derivatives betting, and the lack of a rational national energy policy, this is why we're seeing high prices for gas. Watching you idiots blame Democrats and Republicans just depresses me. Even trying an antitrust lawsuit will not fix the problem. All these companies are multinational. You'd have to COLLAPSE the US economic system to enforce an antitrust verdict.
banshee90May 15, 2011
Easy fix if you want to buy 100 million barrels, Prove that you have the ability to store it.
ferretmanMay 15, 2011
Sigh....the headline is deliberately misleading (presumably due the poster). It says "admits" like it was forced out of her or something.
No, their *analysis* by their *experts* says it should be $60 - $70 per barrel. A combination of speculation and the weaker dollar have led to it skyrockeing to around $100/barrel...it's not the oil companies doing it.
psychoaceMay 16, 2011
Why is it that when gas was $140 dollars a barrel we were topping out at $4.50 a gallon here in Illinois but now that it's only been hovering around $100 we are reaching that same price at the pump.
herojonMay 16, 2011
Good question. Uncertain answer. Let's consider some variables.
What is minimum wage now? People working at the gas stations make a little more than they did back then I believe. This means the input costs for the gas station are higher= higher price.
What about tax policy? Has it changed? I don't know the situation in Illinois.
What about property prices? Are gas station owners paying the same for the land as they were back then?
Insurance?
Etc. There are lots of factors that go into the price at the pump beyond just the price of oil. The amount of profit the supplier of the oil makes is some fraction of the total profit on the sale. The franchise owner of the station makes some as well. The government takes some. It's hard to answer your question without knowing details, but it would be lazy if some people jumped to the conclusion that it automatically means prices are being gouged.
psychoaceMay 16, 2011
Ah I remember now. Last time gas hit $4.50, Illinois pulled its taxes on gas in order to bring down the cost of gas. Now they can't do it because they are in the shi*ter and need to bail themselves out. Thanks :)
angrycat70May 16, 2011
federal and state taxes + weak dollar.
djplayerMay 16, 2011
USD vs. Crude Oil
http://www.swifteconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USD-vs.-Oil.png
notice the prices were changing far before Egypt or Libya.. google a graph of the last decade.. gas prices were expensive until the housing/credit crisis smacked the USD to the ground..
Since most are to lazy to find it 2002-2011 USD vs. Oil
http://stocktwits50.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/crude-oil-vs-usdollar.png
jabariabramsonMay 16, 2011
Love the dog and pony show. What's next, a hearing on overinflated private contractor spending? Oh wait, they did that a few months ago...
rixar13May 16, 2011
It's now time to end oil subsidizes and prevent future price rigging at the expense of the working poor...
cizzymacMay 15, 2011
There really should be a law forcing commodities futures buyers to take physical ownership of their contracts. You want to buy a 50k barrel contract? You've got to store those barrels somewhere until that contract is fulfilled!
You can bet your ass these sudden, ridiculous price fluctuations would come crashing to a halt really fast.
npisthojMay 15, 2011
you can jack up the price of any service or product you own, such as oil and iPad.
novenatorMay 15, 2011
Greedy Republican speculators on Wall St. are to blame for the price at the pump. There has never been a greater supply in the US.
chrisvazquez1May 15, 2011
Wait? So it's not based on OPEC? Come on Novenator put your tinfoil hat back in the closet. It's a shame we can't force countries out of OPEC. Oil has become a monopoly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
avdpMay 15, 2011
No, it's not really based on OPEC. Oil is a commodity traded in the stock market. There are people (republicans and democrats) that make hefty profits on buying and selling oil, without ever seeing a drop of it themselves.
JS76May 15, 2011
Commodities don't trade on stock markets
mtduff421May 15, 2011
Commodities trade in the futures market
breadfredMay 15, 2011
Maybe it is difficult to grasp the concept that there is more than 1 greedy bastard club?
rudegarMay 15, 2011
" It's a shame we can't force countries out of OPEC. "
maybe you can if you invade them
or just get a couple of nukes and hold the world for ransom for say ONE million Dollars!
resistoonMay 15, 2011
And Greedy Democrats will raise taxes when all this is over with.
rudegarMay 15, 2011
yeeaaahaaaaa
<Shoots pistol up in the air>
nihilMay 15, 2011
you realize that "Wall St." gave most of its campaign donations to Obama, right?
breadfredMay 15, 2011
You realize that Obama got the majority of his campaign donations from small donations, right?
hackwrenchMay 15, 2011
What does that have to do with whether Wall Street oil speculators are Republican or not?
breadfredMay 15, 2011
I was replying to nihil - was your response perhaps meant for him?
hackwrenchMay 15, 2011
If Wall Street is giving most of their political donations to Democrats, that means it is very unlikely they are Republicans. On the other hand, how much money Obama gets from non Wall Street people has nothing to do with whether or not people on Wall Street are Republicans.
kasha34May 15, 2011
We realize he CLAIMS that.
breadfredMay 15, 2011
Why don't look at some facts. They do not bite, you know - they do not leave physical scars.
jsplawnMay 15, 2011
Now who's wearing the tinfoil hat?
kasha34May 15, 2011
Here's the headline from the Campaign Finance Institute:
"REALITY CHECK: Obama Received About the Same Percentage from Small Donors in 2008 as Bush in 2004
Obama also raised 80% more from large donors than small, outstripping all rivals and predecessors
"
http://www.cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/08-11-24/Realty_Check_-_Obama_Small_Donors.aspx
The claim that Obama raised all his money from small grass roots donors was false. Accept it.
djguerrillaMay 15, 2011
He's right. I voted for him but he is just as in bed with corporations as anybody in D.C. . He made the CEO of GE the Jobs Czar or whatever for f**k's sake. Until these campaign finance laws change, all politicians will continue to f**k corporations like hookers wearing suits for that big money. No one should be able to donate more than $50, whether it be you, me, or a corporation.
kasha34May 15, 2011
"he is just as in bed with corporations as anybody in D.C."
I'll have to look it up, but I think it's just as likely that Obama's big contributors are other than corporations. Public sector unions, especially the teacher's unions. Trial lawyers.
And, of course, the Evil One...George Soros.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorMay 16, 2011
The amount is not as important as the number of donations. If you have 1 million poor people donating $5, that equals one Wall St. douche donating the same amount by that logic.
The number of people is more important (or at least in a democracy, it *should* be) than anything. We have to take the power of money out of the political process, the ISSUES are what are important. Public financing of campaigns is the key to fix it.
weebitMay 16, 2011
What i really wish is for a past President to come forward and tell us how much of their decisions come from him, and how many come from corporations. Plus how much power he really has sitting behind that desk.
Closed AccountMay 17, 2011
So it is OK to only take a FEW big donations from major corporations?
daimposterMay 15, 2011
Giving Obama most of your campaign donations was just putting money on a horse with an 8 length lead as you head down the final 1/4 mile stretch.
It doesn't mean that 'Wall St' is democrat....it was just a business move.
kaelyiestaMay 16, 2011
Exactly. They give money to those who will return the favor.
richardboreanMay 15, 2011
If you think it's just Republicans, you are kidding yourself.
clvngodessMay 15, 2011
Exactly! This D vs R argument is impotent. They BOTH work for the Masters. Of course, one has to not get locked into ideology and have the ability to stand back and be objective. Something both sides of the unfettered oilygarchy (or is it now a plutarchy?) would prefer we the minions not do...
cosmicsurferMay 15, 2011
If we don't argue the partisan argument, how will they hide?
Pitting everyone against each other in order to steal everything out from under us...We just haven't figured out that we are falling now. The whole world pulled out from under us....
Kali didn't have to come in. We are destroying ourselves
davidtcMay 16, 2011
This is novie you are talking about. He is one of the most radical progressives on the site. No use trying to talk to him about anything.
netantMay 16, 2011
Radical? I've been looking for an opportunity to argue with him, but it hasn't happened yet. He's probably 90-95% correct in his presentation of reality, he takes rational, reasonable positions, and can back up his arguments with facts.
That's more than what I can say for you right wing tools.
davidtcMay 17, 2011
"That's more than what I can say for you right wing tools."
Not even worth a proper comment when you are already leaning heavily towards one side and group everyone else into the opposite.
novenatorMay 16, 2011
You are correct of course, but you have to look at which party is fighting for reforms of both the financial sector and campaign finance, and which is against it to figure out who is by far more guilty.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richardboreanMay 16, 2011
My point is that if you really think one is more guilty than the other, you are kidding yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, democrats and republicans are pretty much the same party anymore. They have their littles quarrels which makes popular evening news, but in general, they are all on the same team: them.
novenatorMay 16, 2011
This is where we might have to agree to disagree. One has to have the ability to distinguish between a party that has a few guilty members and one predominated by guilty members, as proven by their voting records (mentioned above).
It's like treating someone who stole a candybar with equal jail time as someone who stole $5 million bucks from the retirement funds of old folks (exaggerated of course, but you get the idea).
I will concede that the predominate policies by the Democratic Party have not been leftist (or even centrist) for the last 20 years. They would be considered a center-right party by the standards of any other developed nation. We need to either retake the Democratic Party to fight for real change and reform or start a new party.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
richardboreanMay 16, 2011
All I can really say to that is, yes, we most certainly disagree on just about everything haha
netantMay 16, 2011
The "progressive" or "liberal" wing of the party will never take the DP leadership. Political parties work for corporations. I believe both parties make up "differences" that are irrelevant, and then try to market their set of differences. The winner makes more money; both parties protect the issues of the rich.
For reasons I don't completely understand, the set of "differences" the Republican Party
market themselves with are just flat out ridiculous. So I'm "stuck" voting for Democratic candidates. I do keep my eye on 3rd party candidates to vote for, just to stick it to the Democrats, but usually they carry serious flaws.
I think in order for a "progressive-like" platform to be carried by the Democratic Party, one of two things need to happen. An unstoppably charismatic candidate comes about that genuinely believes in progressivism, and can neutralize the corporate masters with superior strategy and tactics. He/she hasn't shown up yet; after Obama, I'm not holding my breath anymore.
Or the progressive/liberal branch have to go grass roots, the way the Republicans did back in the 1970's. They have to break the hypnotic hold the mainstream media has over the general public. The overwhelming majority of people just swallow the TV/radio hook, line, and sinker. Noam Chomsky called it "Manufacturing Consent". Once people can start looking at issues from their own self-interest, and work against entrenched politicians, this country should be in better shape, governing-wise.
As long as you have poor people thinking its unfair to raise the taxes of the top 2% of the income earning population (which owns about 40% of the nation's entire wealth), that national health care cannot work, despite the fact it works in every other industrialized nation, that they must protect their gun ownership rights, but not their privacy rights or illegal gov't intervention in their lives, that gov't must allow bankers to jeopardize and potentially collapse our entire banking system, that they're against gov't handouts, but can't touch social security or medicare, this nation is hopeless.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
linuxpersonMay 15, 2011
Explain to us how political parties are relevant in a discussion about oil speculation.
Everything is Democrats vs Republicans in your simple little world.
Unregistered_CowardMay 15, 2011
Never underestimate Novenators ability to use the term Republican as a slur. It's not "Greedy speculators", but "Greedy Republican speculators".
I wonder if Novenator, wait, let me rephrase, I wonder if "that myopically retarded Novenator" has stopped to consider how my of his liberal brethren also benefit from Wall Streets speculation?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
clvngodessMay 15, 2011
Wow. You had to go to and make it personal. Which discredits what could have become a very interesting argument in regards to the two sided coin called capitalism...
Unregistered_CowardMay 15, 2011
Not personal to me as I'm far from a Republican. I've just grown weary of Novenator's constant partisanship. He's so far left he's coming round up on the right. He's a caricature of political discourse.
cosmicsurferMay 15, 2011
The only "crisis" is a manipulation of the prices....like we have EVERY winter and EVERY 4th of July; EVERY Easter and EVERY Labor Day. ALWAYS an excuse...
The speculators are there and causing huge increases in the barrel price, These commodities get sold and resold and resold before they hit a refinery and then jacked up with expenses there.
It isn't just oll, it is natural gas (shipped outside the state of productuon and then in from another stat in order to tack fees onto it.), coal, bio-fuels (corn and other grains used cost to create bio-fuels take more in energy to produce from water to fertilizer to manpower and oul based industry costs)
AND, to top it all, the US consumer is whining about an inflation that is still cheaper than it is anywhere else - why?
The actual cost to the US citizen is hidden. Your tax dollars pay for a large part of the cost through credits and outright pay offs to the oil companies, their refineries, their shippers...
We pay for THEIR pipelines; give them free access through anyone's land (easements forced from farmers and ranchers, homeowners and through pristine forests and mountains, national parks and BLM lands); we give them leases to OUR land for pennies; give them our oil - - much of what is being pulled out of the ground is owned by the state. We OWN those mineral rights and oil rights, the water rights...ALL the oil pulled from the continental US and within the 12 mile limit is OWNED by the US taxpayer but we give it to the oil companies (don't believe it? A little test, if you are a homeowner...research your title. Pull out that title commitment from your purchase and check the "exceptions page". There are laws on every mineral right for your property. You own only what you can see and even that has limits.)...but I digress...
WE pay their drilling costs; protect them from legal problems, safety problems and when they f**k up, we pay for that too. We build the refineries, offset their production costs, pay for their damages and cleanup their messes.
But after all is paid and that wonderful black goo - that dead animal garbage is shipped off and may never even come to our country again....IT is all sold on the world market and NOT used for the US.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/93619/if_we_drill_in_the_u.s.,_we_don%27t_get_the_oil/
Drill baby drill and sell your baby to the highest bidder....trade and trade and trade again then back to refine in OUR plant to be sold to us ate exorbitant, fixed prices
kasha34May 15, 2011
Uh, what happened in the 80s? This evil scheme broke down?
JS76May 15, 2011
The majority of the top speculators are Democrats, as identified by donations in the last election. That may change, as the hedge funds aren't happy with Obama at the moment, but they did send their money to him last time.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
daimposterMay 15, 2011
copy pasta from above:
Wall Street giving Obama most of its campaign donations was just putting money on a horse with an 8 length lead as you head down the final 1/4 mile stretch.
It doesn't mean that 'Wall St' is democrat....it was just a business move.
(I'm sure they voted mostly republican in most congressional races)
JS76May 15, 2011
Disagree completely with your assessment.
Source: http://dealbreaker.com/2011/05/ken-griffin-on-why-the-democrats-have-lost-the-love-of-some-hedge-fund-managers/
"There was a period of unprecedented spending and entitlements- you saw a frustration in the asset management community with the expansion of government that took place under George Bush. The embracing of the Democrats then was a hope and a wish to return to the policies of President Clinton, who demonstrated a fiscal conservatism we haven’t seen in a long time in this country. The frustration with Obama is that the administration is taking the spending levels of the Bush era and multiplying them by some multiple. We are greatly concerned about the fiscal stability of this country…We need to move quickly before we reach the point of no return. I believe that’s what’s driving the public demonstration of hedge fund frustration."
- Ken Griffin, Citadel Investment Group (one of the biggest/best funds around)
Wall Street bet on Obama because they did not like Republican policies and Obama promised to be fiscally conservative. He has not delivered on that promise, so they are moving in a new direction.
novenatorMay 16, 2011
Wall St. is loving Obama's center-right economic policies. For them, the Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. The historical tendline can be found here: http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html
Corporate profits are also way up. The problem is the rich and powerful are hogging all of this at the top, and asking the rest of America to work harder for less to get even greater profits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JS76May 16, 2011
I don't understand the correlation you're deriving from higher stock prices and Wall Street liking Obama. This is partially because inflationary policies should naturally cause the rise in prices we're seeing, partially because the stock market is in no great rally right now and partially because people on Wall Street are actively saying that they don't like Obama.
Don't confuse Corporate America and Wall Street. They're two very different animals.
netantMay 16, 2011
You tool. Ken Griffin is the head lackey of the investment bankers. Its just a BS story cooked up by a hedge fund manager.
The rich do not want to see the following things happen: 1) they don't want to see a failure to raise the debt ceiling. 2) They don't want their taxes raised to pay for health care, social security, or any other progressive program.
They threw money at Obama in 2008 because the Republican Party "whackjobs" nearly killed the TARP bailout in 2007. Instead of the GOP doing the "responsible" thing, and force down concessions for giving away taxpayer money, they eventually bent over to direct threats made behind closed doors. The Powers That Be felt they needed a guy who never threaten to destroy their class over principle. Once Obama and the Democrats rolled in, they needed to be marginalized, to keep them from rolling back "Republican reforms" like their lower taxes, or put in a GENUINE national health care system.
If Obama stays in place, with both Democratic houses, their taxes get raised, because that's the only RESPONSIBLE way to address the growing national deficit. What the rich want now is the budget to be "balanced" by the total dismantlement of the gov't social spending, while keeping the US spending more for their military than the rest of the world combined. So the rich will be pumping money to the Republican candidate, unless a disaster gets the nomination, and keep the "heat" on the Democrats. Its a very intricate dance, and you don't understand how gov't works, so you buy the BS fairy tale they've prepared for you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JS76May 16, 2011
Citation Needed
daimposterMay 16, 2011
@ JS76: While I agree with your post, it is only a part of the reason. I really think the reason "they are moving in a new direction" is mostly because of the regulation reforms he is imposing on Wall St.
Clinton did demonstrate fiscal conservatism BUT he also relaxed much of the regulations on Wall St. that was part of the reason Wall St crashed (along with Bush spending like crazy when we had a surplus, a major no no ----- spend during recession, control inflation during good economic times).
JS76May 17, 2011
The regulation reforms are targeting investment banks. While some investment banks do have in-house hedge funds, the overwhelming majority of hedge funds are independent. The regulation on the banks is actually helping private asset management firms gain talent - for example, Goldman Sachs prop traders joining KKR due to the limitations they would have faced had they stayed at Goldman because of the Volcker Rule.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/goldman-prop-trading-desk-to-join-k-k-r/
The regulation is important, and I feel it's highly necessary even if many of the people at Wall Street firms on both the buy and sell sides feel it isn't, but it's impacting public firms and sell side firms much more heavily than it's hitting private buy side firms. The vast majority of hedge funds fall into the latter category.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchMay 15, 2011
I heard that the speculators are allowed to buy on margin and that a regulatimg body the president has influence if not outright control over cold make them pay full price and it would go a lomg way to dealing with the speculaor problem.
originalspeedysMay 15, 2011
Because we all know Democrats don't speculate on markets.
kasha34May 15, 2011
Marx used to blame rising prices in the USSR on "speculators" too.
It's stupid.
slayerabMay 15, 2011
Marx was English? The USSR didn't come to exist for years after his death?
kasha34May 15, 2011
Oops. I meant Lenin. Thanks for correcting me.
Marx did rail against speculators, but not in the USSR.
weewahzMay 15, 2011
Greedy Democrat speculators on Wall St. are to blame for the price at the pump. There has never been a greater supply in the US. ;)
herojonMay 16, 2011
Wow. All speculators are Republican huh? Very false assumption.
I don't know them personally, but I do know that the 20th century champion of wealth redistribution, John Meynard Keynes, was a speculator. There are plenty of Democrats who are speculators in the market too. A person's job does not determine their political ideology (unless they work in politics).
Your statement is extremely close-minded and full of fallacy. Way to over politicize the issue though.
angrycat70May 16, 2011
you are wrong. 1/3 of the price at the pump is federal, state taxes. Sounds more like "greedy tax and spend democrats" are driving up prices at the pump.
Don't discount the weakness of the dollar. That's why oil is staying relatively high.
kamramnaMay 20, 2011
I think its time to give this so-called "game" a name ... its called GREED, plain and simple greed. The greedy will contiinue to dominate untile we change the name of the game to "I'm tired of getting screwed" ...
tonytiger534May 20, 2011
Well as usual the middle class and poor get the shaft while the oil barrons make billions!
hiltonexeterMay 16, 2011
Thanks to the Republicans we are paying high gas prices to Wall Street and our taxes supporting big oil!
krazedkaozMay 15, 2011
wooooooo big shock........... ty sherlock
skyislandMay 15, 2011
The volatility of price, monetary price of 'next marginal' unit of oil is destined to float on the derivatives market speculation which is subject to influence of possible increase in military instability.
Earth's environmental systems are on track to stop working due to the use of oil.
cactus1erMay 15, 2011
Really... I wonder where the money goes! Wait, in their bonus, that's right!
aaronmaestriMay 15, 2011
Wow... This would have been helpful to tell the American Public as well as the International Community approx. 2 years ago AFTER the fallout of the subprime mortage!!
manicdvlnMay 15, 2011
Oil, Gold, Silver prices are simply manipulated by speculators.
h_toddMay 15, 2011
Nice
adenovirMay 15, 2011
Take a look at a chart of oil prices over the past 10 years...
http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html
Notice what happened last time oil prices got ahead of the fundamentals? The price of oil dropped like a rock and "speculators" took a bath. They get blamed when the prices rise, but no one looks to see what happens after prices drop. Nol one investigated the sudden price drop.
Price is set by the market based on supply, demand, AND psychology. In the short term, psychology often wins, but long term supply/demand determines the price. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm not joining the chorus of those who want to blame the speculators.
jagedlionMay 15, 2011
Makes you wonder what is going to happen to gold prices.
adenovirMay 17, 2011
I think we get a pull back to $1000 in gold within the next year, but that's just me.
rowlodgeMay 15, 2011
they made okay on $32 a barrel a few years back.
gleongelpiMay 15, 2011
No, they did not. The $32 a barrel was the "last" barrel traded in the futures market. Everything else was traded at a higher price in the futures market and the futures market trades in a wider range than the spot market, thus, the lowest spot price that a company like Exxom paid was probably in the 40s., and the average price for that year was much higher.
Furthermore, Exxom doesn't make most of its money from petroleum; it makes it from refining and retail sales, and they sell a variety of products besides gasoline and other petroleum based products.
Furthermore, it is not a matter of how much Exxom and the others make. It is a matter of their rate of return on sales. With millions of investors and employees, the revenues of Exxom are not as stratospherical as some would want to believe. And, furthermore, what about the bad years?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
santaplausibleMay 15, 2011
Is that with or without the government subsidies?
laurahoustonMay 15, 2011
60 to 70 a barrel in oil CEO speak, means anything over $10 a barrel is pure gravey.
Closed AccountMay 16, 2011
"[The market] was reacting to insecurity..." | Great words to say nothing.
kirkcommandoMay 15, 2011
I personally feel that only a barrel of root beer should exceed $70.
tarksammonsMay 15, 2011
Look at the effects of central bank loose monetary policy. It created "hot money" which generates asset bubbles all over the place and often in commodities. As the CEO said, economics would see the price reflect the cost of the next marginal increment, but with loose monetary policy price begins to reflect the next marginal increment in available currency, two distinctly different things.
While everyone looks at the head of the problem (commodity prices) the tail (The Fed) is wagging the dog and levying the biggest tax increase in history on the poor and middle class. Inflation hits those two groups the hardest, because they have the least amount of pad to absorb price shocks and typically maintain the predominant amount of savings in cash or equivalents.
232sma992May 21, 2011
hi
pablorouxMay 20, 2011
That's the nature of the commodity
kimsteeleMay 16, 2011
Wow! This is insane! Why are we all paying so much for gas? i don't get it!
mtnmusicmanMay 16, 2011
But they still want more..Now that is pathetic..
dethblowMay 16, 2011
Lynch the mother-f**kers!!
dethblowMay 16, 2011
Lynch the mother-f**kers!!
WPrivetMay 16, 2011
In other words, Democrats are destroying the good job the energy companies are doing to produce at the marginal cost.
mtnmusicmanMay 16, 2011
lol...Sooo funny
cayuse1May 15, 2011
Does not surprise me. When farmer get $1000 a month per windmill and the British make so much off the Green Subsidy from tax payers they buy the Northwest Power Companies. What is new? Except the Rep and Dem going at each other while loosing their own ases
noogai42May 15, 2011
correct response: b*tch stop worryin about oil and make me a sandwich
spc79May 15, 2011
How much longer are we going to allow these Big Oil dictators run our lives. They have all the power, and they know it. What the hell is it going to take to end them taking advantage of us?
doskrautMay 15, 2011
barnum and bailey said it best,there a sucker born every minute.if people are so stupid to pay $4 a gallon then so be it.as a shareholder of shell,BP,exon i say charge them $6 a gallon,people will cry the government will investigate and you will still buy gas.I love the oil company's,keep up the great work.
stealthspcMay 15, 2011
And what do you propose we do instead? Not drive?
skinturtleMay 16, 2011
yep....boycott everything for a week and watch every friggin' greedy Corporation out there fall to it's knees. But boycotting is hard for us to do because we're all just as greedy.
stealthspcMay 16, 2011
If you think that will work you're really stupid. They know you need oil. Boycotts wont work.
jodyrdavis537May 16, 2011
Invest in renewable energy sources such as switchgrass for ethanol, algae for biodeisel and Plasma Gasification while doing more research in Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen. Do more research in cars that run on pneumatic air compression like they do in India, buy electric cars, hybrid cars, and relinquish the control of the oil companies. Drive more conscientiously with not doing jack rabbit starts, speeding, etc. Car pool, use the bus, ride a bike, telecommute. Contact your congressman and ask for more to be done with plasma gasification and tell him or her that you want the tax payers to own the facilities like a co-op or a shareholder of a business. Or simply contact your congressman and tell him or her that you want something done about this, that you are tired of being dependant on oil companies and speculators taking money out of our economy and either lining the pockets of those who are already rich or some foreign country.
ansari119May 15, 2011
I like it which means 2.50 per gallon!
dedawMay 15, 2011
DUH!
caramelcrazeMay 15, 2011
Wow !!
ZeroDowntimeMay 16, 2011
The supply is artificially low because we put a moratorium on our own drilling. We have worked hard at destroying our oil and coal industries. Our problems are self inflicted, and its not conclusive that its due to stupidity. It could be deliberate. http://www.development-resources.com
nitoriMay 16, 2011
Also there are no synthetic petroleum plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
There is lots of coal in the US normally this is a dirty energy source but since most of the transport energy costs and the need for oil wars are wiped out for the US it would be much greener then middle east oil.
Biofuel also is a good solution but not from corn switch grass a native prairie grass gives a 540% energy return vs a measly 125% return with corn.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn