View Full Version : How to deal with rising oil prices
As we all know, the dollar cost of oil is reaching all-time highs. There are a number of reasons for this; the first is the devaluation of the US dollar. The second is a worldwide increase in demand, without an adequate increase in supply. A number of solutions have been propsed to deal with high energy costs, although with different levels of effectiveness. Which do you think is best?
potter
06-05-2008, 07:19 PM
Conservation and research into alternate clean fuels.
Both good ideas and both oddly rejected by oil man Bush...he's got yer back.....
Although I'm usually opposed to government intervention in the economy, I think there's a strong case for some sort of initiative to kickstart the use of electric vehicles and subsidise research into battery technology for this purpose. All that needs to happen is for someone to come up with a good way of storing energy. There's tons of cheap energy on the power grid that isn't produced by oil; the difficult part is putting it in a car. Current batteries in EV's (electric vehicles) tend to be expensive, wear out after a few years and don't last enough for long trips. EV's are preferable IMHO because electric motors are highly efficient at converting electrical to kinetic energy, and there's already large-scale infrastructure in place for power generation. Other proposals, such as biofuels and hydrogen would require alot of new infrastructure, and have side-effects of their own, such as creating food shortages, or still requiring natural gas, or energy-inefficient cracking of water.
So if someone can invent a good long-lasting and powerful battery, they will get filthy rich.
potter
06-05-2008, 07:42 PM
Actually, the only involvement the government has to do is for Bush to get on the tube and say "start conserving fuel..." like he should have done 5 years ago instead of telling us to have a spending spree.....
Osborn F. Enready
06-05-2008, 07:44 PM
I am against government intervention, which is why I think they should but out further than they are, by cutting all energy incentives which come DIRECTLY from the pockets of the taxpayers.
They should take action to strengthen the dollar, and let the market work it out in a FAIR, FREE MARKET, not one lopsided by government intervention and regulation.
potter
06-05-2008, 07:45 PM
How are they going to "boost the value of the dollar"
They would have to pay down the debt to do that....
How are they going to "boost the value of the dollar"
They would have to pay down the debt to do that....
Two other ways as well. The Federal Open Market committe can sell government bonds, or the Fed can raise interest rates.
Actually there's three. The third is to give the Fed the finger and congress starts issuing its own money
potter
06-05-2008, 07:48 PM
Two ways. The Federal Open Market committe can sell government bonds, or the Fed can raise interest rates.
Wouldn't selling more government bonds with no backing actually weaken the dollar? Thats just printing more money.
Raising interest rates would help...but IMO that would have to be in conjunction of paying down debt.
Wouldn't selling more government bonds with no backing actually weaken the dollar? Thats just printing more money.
Raising interest rates would help...but IMO that would have to be in conjunction of paying down debt.
The Department of treasury sells the original bonds. When the treasury sells more bonds, this increases government borrowing. When the Fed Open Market Committe buys up the bonds, more money is put in circulation as the bonds are paid for with money created from nothing. When the Fed sells bonds, they are purchased with money from the general public, and thus reduces the money supply.
tecoyah
06-05-2008, 07:57 PM
I couldn't vote, as my choice is unlisted.
Actively fund and advance the next generation of energy production.
The technology is already here....we just need to use it wisely. I believe we could lower our oil usage by 50% within ten years if we tried, and improve the economy at the same time.
brien
06-05-2008, 08:44 PM
The Congress has had over 30 years since the oil shocks of the 70's to do something about the price and development of petroleum. What have they done? Restricted drilling for crude. Restricted the development of refineries through increased regulation and has shut down the nuclear industries by caving into the enviornemntalist fears of a nuclear meltdown. All while Vermont, the Greenest state in the nation, is mostly powered by Vermont Yankee NUCLEAR power plant in Vernon VT... F*cking hypocrites. Typical of Bernie Sanders and his socialist crowd whose moto is "do as I say, not as I do"
We need to drill for new reserves, develop nuclear power plants, recommission those that were shut down, and promote, through tax credits, all real alternatives and deliveries of those alternatives, to petroleum products. We need to construct more trash to energy plants on the local levels. We need to expand and construct more coal fired gassification energy plants. The Federal and State governments need to suspend all gax taxes immediately to bring down the price by 65 cents per gallon. They lie to you when they tell you they use it all for road construction and improvements. They steal it for earmarks to pet projects for popular and powerful Senators and Congress people at both the state and federal levels. Ever hear of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
Congress loves to point their hypocritical finger towards the "evil big oil companies" because it is Congress who needs the scapegoat for their 30+ years of irresponsible actions in energy plans. What's worse, is they're doing the same thing over again, and most Americans are taking the smelly old bait, once again, hook, line and sinker. They are just old whores in new dresses.
SUCKERS! All of you who continue to vote for either major party. They have got us where we are today, and you all have the foolishness to continue to vote them into power. You deserve $10 per gallon gasoline and home heating oil if you don't wake up, and wake up, soon.
Obama talks of change....right.... change in your pocket is all you will have if you vote him in. And MC Cain talks of security, none of which you will have when you can't even keep yourself warm or drive your automobiles to work a job that won't even pay for your electirc bill.
I yi yi, why do I even bother!
I couldn't vote, as my choice is unlisted.
Actively fund and advance the next generation of energy production.
The technology is already here....we just need to use it wisely. I believe we could lower our oil usage by 50% within ten years if we tried, and improve the economy at the same time.
That is sort-of what I had in mind for the second last option. However, its really up to the private sector to drive development in this sector. I'm sure the military could help by designing hummers that run on alternative fuels or something like that.
The Congress has had over 30 years since the oil shocks of the 70's to do something about the price and development of petroleum. What have they done? Restricted drilling for crude. Restricted the development of refineries through increased regulation and has shut down the nuclear industries by caving into the enviornemntalist fears of a nuclear meltdown. All while Vermont, the Greenest state in the nation, is mostly powered by Vermont Yankee NUCLEAR power plant in Vernon VT... F*cking hypocrites. Typical of Bernie Sanders and his socialist crowd whose moto is "do as I say, not as I do"
We need to drill for new reserves, develop nuclear power plants, recommission those that were shut down, and promote, through tax credits, all real alternatives and deliveries of those alternatives, to petroleum products. We need to expand and construct more coal fired gassification energy plants. The Federal and State governments need to suspend all gax taxes immediately to bring down the price by 65 cents per gallon. They lie to you when they tell you they use it all for road construction and improvements. They steal it for earmarks to pet projects for popular and powerful Senators and Congress people at both the state and federal levels. Ever hear of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
Congress loves to point their hypocritical finger towards the "evil big oil companies" because it is Congress who needs the scapegoat for their 30+ years of irresponsible actions in energy plans. What's worse, is they're doing the same thing over again, and most Americans are taking the smelly old bait, once again, hook, line and sinker. They are just old whores in new dresses.
SUCKERS! All of you who continue to vote for either major party. They have got us where we are today, and you all have the foolishness to continue to vote them into power. You deserve $10 per gallon gasoline and home heating oil if you don't wake up, and wake up, soon.
Obama talks of change....right.... change in your pocket is all you will have if you vote him in. And MC Cain talks of security, none of which you will have when you can't even keep yourself warm or drive your automobiles to work a job that won't even pay for your electirc bill.
I yi yi, why do I even bother!
Whilst I agree that current regulations on the nuclear industry are stupid and have been forced through by empty-headed environmentalists, nuke plants aren't going to lower the price of petrol, as they only supply energy to the grid. The only ways nuclear plants can lower petrol prices is if they're built to replace oil-fired power plants in the Middle East in places like Iran, or if they're used to provide electricity for hydrogen fuel or electric batteries.
tecoyah
06-05-2008, 08:57 PM
That is sort-of what I had in mind for the second last option. However, its really up to the private sector to drive development in this sector. I'm sure the military could help by designing hummers that run on alternative fuels or something like that.
It's true the private sector will do the work for us all....but the Gov't will need to remove the walls preventing the inevitable. This will not happen while the Oil Lobby has the white house by the short hairs.
brien
06-05-2008, 08:57 PM
That is sort-of what I had in mind for the second last option. However, its really up to the private sector to drive development in this sector. I'm sure the military could help by designing hummers that run on alternative fuels or something like that.
We already have hydrogen fuel cells that power buses and cars. We need a national delivery system and the vehicles offered to the public.
Maybe some anti-trust laws are in order? I'm sure the oil sector will waste no time paying off service stations not to supply hydrogen fuel or anything like that
As we all know, the dollar cost of oil is reaching all-time highs. There are a number of reasons for this; the first is the devaluation of the US dollar. The second is a worldwide increase in demand, without an adequate increase in supply. A number of solutions have been propsed to deal with high energy costs, although with different levels of effectiveness. Which do you think is best?
Invade more oil-rich countries
Invading countries isn't what America does (for loot).
Establish public works programs for energy independence - liquefied coal and/or electric vehicles
We have enough social programs
Boost the value of the dollar
They tried that when the united states was a confederate alliance, we learned from our mistake. And personally, I think we should just leave that corporate tax the way it is.
In my opinion, we should drill domestically, and let the market sort it out, because interference will make the problem last longer.
Just my opinion.
Osborn F. Enready
06-05-2008, 09:53 PM
Davo said:
The third is to give the Fed the finger and congress starts issuing its own money
That is my preference, and Constitutionally sound money of gold or silver, or a solid tie to ANY tangible valued good.
Potter said:
How are they going to "boost the value of the dollar"
Well they could start by doing as mentioned by Davo above, which would stop the intrest on the loan for every dollar printed to the Federal Reserve.
Tecoyah said:
Actively fund and advance the next generation of energy production.
The technology is already here....we just need to use it wisely. I believe we could lower our oil usage by 50% within ten years if we tried, and improve the economy at the same time.
I agree with your statements, but I disagree with your sentiment in regards to funding.
The government has no right to tax and spend individuals money for things like this.
Phyxius
06-05-2008, 09:57 PM
I agree with your statements, but I disagree with your sentiment in regards to funding.
The government has no right to tax and spend individuals money for things like this.
There you go again, mistaking what you don't like with what the government "has the right" to do. Show me in the Constitution where the right to tax and spend for things like this is denied.
Go ahead, paste the link... :ponder:
Buck Laser
06-05-2008, 10:20 PM
With seven choices here, I'd think you could have posted at least one logical and practical course: conservation through a national lowering of speed limits, tighter controls on gas mileage of new cars, along with development of alternate energy sources that don't create more problems than they solve. Both biofuels and nuclear power have major risk factors despite the cockeyed optimism of their enthusiasts.
Osborn F. Enready
06-05-2008, 10:20 PM
Phyxius said:
There you go again, mistaking what you don't like with what the government "has the right" to do. Show me in the Constitution where the right to tax and spend for things like this is denied.
Go ahead, paste the link...
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Do you know what kind of taxes are covered in the Constitution? Duties, Imposts and Excise taxes. Do you know what any of the three are?
Go here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Read from Article 1, Section 7 to Article 1, Section 10.
Here is an article that more accurately addresses the issue in question, and points to the current and long existing divide between Constitutional scholars of different varieties.
On Constitutional taxation, especially regarding the 16th amendment.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4541243/Interpreting-the-Sixteenth-Amendment.html
On Constitutional income, and if you have any:
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/first_chapter.php
Before we could have a serious discussion on this topic, you need to know the difference between Duties, Imposts and Excise taxes.
Again, this has very little to do with "my opinion".
It has to do with the ACTIVE RE-INTERPRETATION and RE-DEFINITION of our Constitution through bi-partisan appointed justices in all courts, mainly the highest court.
Phyxius
06-05-2008, 11:31 PM
Do you know what kind of taxes are covered in the Constitution? Duties, Imposts and Excise taxes. Do you know what any of the three are?
Go here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Read from Article 1, Section 7 to Article 1, Section 10.
Here is an article that more accurately addresses the issue in question, and points to the current and long existing divide between Constitutional scholars of different varieties.
On Constitutional taxation, especially regarding the 16th amendment.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4541243/Interpreting-the-Sixteenth-Amendment.html
On Constitutional income, and if you have any:
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/first_chapter.php
Before we could have a serious discussion on this topic, you need to know the difference between Duties, Imposts and Excise taxes.
Again, this has very little to do with "my opinion".
It has to do with the ACTIVE RE-INTERPRETATION and RE-DEFINITION of our Constitution through bi-partisan appointed justices in all courts, mainly the highest court.
Hmmm. So that means I don't have to pay my taxes? The 16th Amendment is unconstitutional? Wages don't count as income? Has anyone told the IRS that? Oh yeah - they HAVE. Didn't work out so well for those who did, did it? It's the law of the land whether you like it or not. So, YES. Congress CAN levy those taxes.
And you didn't even TOUCH whether or not Congress had the right to **gasp** decide where that money is spent...
Nice try, though. A little removed from "on the ground" reality, but nice try...
Osborn is the king of semantical debates, you aren't going to win :)
Phyxius
06-06-2008, 12:42 AM
Osborn is the king of semantical debates, you aren't going to win :)
F*ck semantics. If he can't argue what is over what he wishes it would be, then he's already defeated himself.
Osborn F. Enready
06-06-2008, 01:03 AM
Phyxius said:
Hmmm. So that means I don't have to pay my taxes?
Do you agree that the government has the right to use force against you, or take your property for not paying them regardless of what they are used for, or by what method those taxes are distributed and applied? OR, Do you agree that people reserve the right to hold government accountable for their spending, allocation of taxation and collection of taxation bound by law or contract?
Regardless, they are using a threat of force and property forfeiture against you if you don't "comply", so what does that sound like to you?
You have a choice, the question is do you have the right, and the will to assert it?
Phyxius said:
The 16th Amendment is unconstitutional?
If you adhere to constructionist/originalist views, yes. If you adhere to progressive/reconstructionist views, no. Only one is logically correct, but both claim to be.
The epitome of hypocrisy when there is no standard adhered to. Bi-partisan appointed courts adhere to the hand(party) that feeds them.
Phyxius said:
Wages don't count as income? Has anyone told the IRS that?
Wages earned in the U.S., by a U.S. natural born citizen don't count as income.
Wages earned out of the U.S., by a U.S. natural born citizen or corporation, count as income. Wages earned by corporations in the U.S. are income.
Phyxius said:
Oh yeah - they HAVE. Didn't work out so well for those who did, did it?
When you appeal to a thief to render justice from someone who thieved from you, do you expect justice?
Phyxius said:
It's the law of the land whether you like it or not. So, YES. Congress CAN levy those taxes.
Its safe to say it will be held as such, while the corrupt bi-partisan monopoly on power continues to run things. They have been working for over a century at dismantling the constitution and individual rights, so I don't see them just choosing to stop now without being inclined or compelled to do so.
Phyxius said:
And you didn't even TOUCH whether or not Congress had the right to **gasp** decide where that money is spent...
Apparently you didn't do your homework assignment. It was in the assigned reading.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Phyxius said:
Nice try, though. A little removed from "on the ground" reality, but nice try...
If you count on your reality being dictated, I can't help you there.
I don't count on my reality being dictated to me, as I have eyes to observe, a sense of smell, touch, taste, and sound, all compiled and synchronized, parted and parced by a human brain, one of the most advanced examples of mammalian or other living beings existence on earth, or any other known planet, to us. As a human person, I also have opposable thumbs, walk upright, have vocal chords to produce controllable sound.
Why would a person allow their reality to be dictated, when it contradicts all that is me, myself and my being, and all of its senses? A rational person wouldn't, which is why rational people question authority, and place value assoications on people, places and things to form an order to life that allows us to seek happiness and avoid despair, depression, anxiety or unjust threat.
When you allow reality to be dictated with ultimate unwavering trust, you run the risk of being manipulated, played as a pawn and abused, never knowing what life actually is. You allow life to be dictated, not lived. You deny self existence, in trade for complicit surrender and dying pleasure. You eventually accept the lie that 2+2=5, even though you know both in your mind, and on your hands and toes, 2+2=4, and you turn the knife against yourself, carving it away until you are an automaton that exists only for the betterment of others, all who deny their pleasure, contentment or enjoyment or betterment, since they are automatons too, and view self recognition and self pleasure as sins to the being that is the servant of a master.
Thats ok, I will make my own choices, live my own live, experience my own pleasure and think for myself. I resist your nanny state, and all its false claims on my existence, my labor, my life and my thoughts, and will be content to be rendered as what I am when the time comes that I should have to face such judgement before any being, even if only myself is there to judge me on my own reckoning day.
We don't have to agree, only tolerate one another, until rights are infringed.
Peace. ;)
DamnYankee
06-06-2008, 02:50 AM
Conservation and research into alternate clean fuels.
Both good ideas and both oddly rejected by oil man Bush...he's got yer back.....
Good ideas. In the meantime, oddly enough, leftist crap kittens when you mention drilling or nuke power.
Where was it? S. Dakota? or was it North? The people voted to build a refinery but the left promised to sue.
Phyxius
06-06-2008, 04:34 AM
Do you agree that the government has the right to use force against you, or take your property for not paying them regardless of what they are used for, or by what method those taxes are distributed and applied? OR, Do you agree that people reserve the right to hold government accountable for their spending, allocation of taxation and collection of taxation bound by law or contract?
Regardless, they are using a threat of force and property forfeiture against you if you don't "comply", so what does that sound like to you?
You have a choice, the question is do you have the right, and the will to assert it?
If you adhere to constructionist/originalist views, yes. If you adhere to progressive/reconstructionist views, no. Only one is logically correct, but both claim to be.
The epitome of hypocrisy when there is no standard adhered to. Bi-partisan appointed courts adhere to the hand(party) that feeds them.
Wages earned in the U.S., by a U.S. natural born citizen don't count as income.
Wages earned out of the U.S., by a U.S. natural born citizen or corporation, count as income. Wages earned by corporations in the U.S. are income.
When you appeal to a thief to render justice from someone who thieved from you, do you expect justice?
Its safe to say it will be held as such, while the corrupt bi-partisan monopoly on power continues to run things. They have been working for over a century at dismantling the constitution and individual rights, so I don't see them just choosing to stop now without being inclined or compelled to do so.
Apparently you didn't do your homework assignment. It was in the assigned reading.
If you count on your reality being dictated, I can't help you there.
I don't count on my reality being dictated to me, as I have eyes to observe, a sense of smell, touch, taste, and sound, all compiled and synchronized, parted and parced by a human brain, one of the most advanced examples of mammalian or other living beings existence on earth, or any other known planet, to us. As a human person, I also have opposable thumbs, walk upright, have vocal chords to produce controllable sound.
Why would a person allow their reality to be dictated, when it contradicts all that is me, myself and my being, and all of its senses? A rational person wouldn't, which is why rational people question authority, and place value assoications on people, places and things to form an order to life that allows us to seek happiness and avoid despair, depression, anxiety or unjust threat.
When you allow reality to be dictated with ultimate unwavering trust, you run the risk of being manipulated, played as a pawn and abused, never knowing what life actually is. You allow life to be dictated, not lived. You deny self existence, in trade for complicit surrender and dying pleasure. You eventually accept the lie that 2+2=5, even though you know both in your mind, and on your hands and toes, 2+2=4, and you turn the knife against yourself, carving it away until you are an automaton that exists only for the betterment of others, all who deny their pleasure, contentment or enjoyment or betterment, since they are automatons too, and view self recognition and self pleasure as sins to the being that is the servant of a master.
Thats ok, I will make my own choices, live my own live, experience my own pleasure and think for myself. I resist your nanny state, and all its false claims on my existence, my labor, my life and my thoughts, and will be content to be rendered as what I am when the time comes that I should have to face such judgement before any being, even if only myself is there to judge me on my own reckoning day.
We don't have to agree, only tolerate one another, until rights are infringed.
Peace. ;)
You can believe what you want. Define your own reality, if you will. But if you choose to use your own definition of "income" in practice, you will find that the government will re-define your reality, and quickly. This is the "facts on the ground" reality. Regardless of what a tax-protest website and one professor's opinions might be, the REALITY is that if you believed it, you (and Mr Jensen) wouldn't be filing your income taxes. If you do, then you are, in fact, letting the government define your reality.
So, are you a tax-evader, or a hypocrite? :ponder:
Pookie
06-06-2008, 05:05 AM
Crap, I'm stuck between these two below. Maybe a combination of both?
I sure as hell am riding my bicycle more, LOL!!
Lift government environmental restrictions on domestic drilling
AND/OR
Boost the value of the dollar
Purrs,
Pookie
I initially thought raise the value of the dollar as well, it sounds clever, but you need to see what happened when we were a confederate alliance (before the nation's constitution).
When they set a "dollar" with a value of government fiat, all that happened was it lost its value and the states started (or rather continued) printing their own money.
Just speculation, maybe thats a different situation.
tecoyah
06-06-2008, 11:33 AM
Good ideas. In the meantime, oddly enough, leftist crap kittens when you mention drilling or nuke power.
Where was it? S. Dakota? or was it North? The people voted to build a refinery but the left promised to sue.
From what I can tell...we have sufficient refinery capability in this country. In fact Oil Companies do not wish to build new ones for the most part, as it is cheaper and faster to simply add on to existing facilities (which they have been doing all along).
As for Nuke Power....Many environmental activists are embracing the idea, but the time line to construction and viability is nearly a decade off, just as is the case for new oil field drilling.
We could do this cheaper and faster:
The largest thin-film solar power plant in the world has opened in Germany, dubbed the “Rote Jahne”. It was built by the contractor Juwi Solar, and it will have a total output capacity of six megawatts. It uses 90,000 solar modules to capture quite a bit of sunlight. Thin-film solar modules are cheaper than crystalline modules and produce more energy per unit of installed capacity. The thin-film cells were made by First Solar. The solar plant is built on a former military airfield, and its module surface area comprises approximately 16.5 acres.
The array will produce around 5.7 million kilowatt-hours of solar electricity every year, enough to power some 1,900 homes.
Juwi Solar has already started building an even larger 40-megawatt solar park, which will be comprised of 550,000 thin-film modules. That project is due to be finished by the end of 2009.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/worlds_largest_5.php
No we don't, we haven't had a new refinery since the 1970's while a coalfire plant comes up every week in china. (I forget, pollution is ok in china, just not america)
Osborn F. Enready
06-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Phyxius said:
You can believe what you want. Define your own reality, if you will. But if you choose to use your own definition of "income" in practice, you will find that the government will re-define your reality, and quickly. This is the "facts on the ground" reality. Regardless of what a tax-protest website and one professor's opinions might be, the REALITY is that if you believed it, you (and Mr Jensen) wouldn't be filing your income taxes. If you do, then you are, in fact, letting the government define your reality.
So, are you a tax-evader, or a hypocrite?
I haven't paid income tax about four years now. Why? I haven't had enough income to tax in the last four years, but I get by just fine.
I have done all I can to cut state taxes out of my life, such as I simply stopped buying premanufactured cigarettes at 4,5,6$ a pack, and started rolling my own for about .47 to .67 cents a pack.
I vote down any new tax proposed at every election, and constantly pester my local officials about their criminal bi-partisan mindset, pointing out the years of failure it has brought us. I participate in local tax protests, and political protests against local and state bi-partisan officials.
Sometimes doing the right thing takes sacrifice, but its been far to rewarding to call it sacrifice for me.
Crap, I'm stuck between these two below. Maybe a combination of both?
I sure as hell am riding my bicycle more, LOL!!
Lift government environmental restrictions on domestic drilling
AND/OR
Boost the value of the dollar
Purrs,
Pookie
As for strengthening the dollar, I'm not sure on this one. I'm not an economist, but surely this will do nothing to the price of oil in real terms, especially if its a supply issue. Having it traded in the dollar is probably good for the United States, but people in the US seem to get fuel much cheaper than we do here in Australia or the UK. Strengthening the value of the dollar might encourage more countries to trade oil in it, which might make fuel cheaper for people in the US, but not in other countries. It would be interesting to see what would happen.
Pookie
06-06-2008, 05:22 PM
As for strengthening the dollar, I'm not sure on this one. I'm not an economist, but surely this will do nothing to the price of oil in real terms, especially if its a supply issue. Having it traded in the dollar is probably good for the United States, but people in the US seem to get fuel much cheaper than we do here in Australia or the UK. Strengthening the value of the dollar might encourage more countries to trade oil in it, which might make fuel cheaper for people in the US, but not in other countries. It would be interesting to see what would happen.
Hmm. There's a thought. You're right, it would be interesting to see what would happen.
I need to give this topic more thought.
Purrs,
Pookie
~psssst~
Follow the money.....
washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html?nav=rss_email/components)
Investors' Growing Appetite for Oil Evades Market Limits
Trading Loophole for Wall Street Speculators Is Driving Up Prices, Critics Say
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 6, 2008; Page A01
Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.
The federal agency that oversees oil trading, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, has exempted these firms from rules that limit speculative buying, a prerogative traditionally reserved for airlines and trucking companies that need to lock in future fuel costs. (emphasis mine ~DANG)
The CFTC has also waived regulations over the past decade on U.S. investors who trade commodities on some overseas markets, freeing those investors to accumulate large quantities of the future oil supply by making purchases on lightly regulated foreign exchanges.
Over the past five years, investors have become such a force on commodity markets that their appetite for oil contracts has been equal to China's increase in demand over the same period, said Michael Masters, a hedge fund manager who testified before Congress on the subject last month. The commodity markets, he added, were never intended for such large financial players.
"I've never said that financial speculation is behind all of the recent price increase here, but even if it's some of the reason, it's something society needs to look very hard at," he said.
more.... :ponder:
I just heard on the radio, speculators can buy $140,000.00 worth of oil on the futures market for about $8000 up front.
LETS MAKE THEM PAY FULL PRICE... like the rest of us do!
brien
06-11-2008, 08:40 PM
I just heard on the radio, speculators can buy $140,000.00 worth of oil on the futures market for about $8000 up front.
LETS MAKE THEM PAY FULL PRICE... like the rest of us do!
Where can I buy these futures? I want $700,000 today.
Like I said, I heard that on the radio... BUT, this story reflects those facts. [NOTE: last paragraph]The Great Oil Swindle: How much did the Fed really know? (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/14960)
The Commodity Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) is investigating trading in oil futures to determine whether the surge in prices to record levels is the result of manipulation or fraud. They might want to take a look at wheat, rice and corn futures while they're at it. The whole thing is a hoax cooked up by the investment banks and hedge funds who are trying to dig their way out of the trillion dollar mortgage-backed securities (MBS) mess that they created by turning garbage loans into securities. That scam blew up in their face last August and left them scrounging for handouts from the Federal Reserve. Now the billions of dollars they're getting from the Fed is being diverted into commodities which is destabilizing the world economy; driving gas prices to the moon and triggering food riots across the planet.
For months we've been told that the soaring price of oil has been the result of Peak Oil, fighting in Iraq, attacks on oil facilities in Nigeria, labor problems in Norway, and (the all-time favorite)growth in China. It's all baloney. Just like Goldman Sachs prediction of $200 per barrel oil is baloney. If oil is about to skyrocket then why has G-Sax kept a neutral rating on some of its oil holdings like Exxon Mobile? Could it be that they know that oil is just another mega-inflated equity bubble---like housing, corporate bonds and dot.com stocks—that is about to crash to earth as soon as the big players grab a parachute?
There are three things that are driving up the price of oil: the falling dollar, speculation and buying on margin.
*snip*
As far as “buying on margin” consider this summary from author William Engdahl:
“A conservative calculation is that at least 60% of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.”
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.