|
The global wealth is spreading..
You americans still pay 1/2 - 1/3 of what the rest of the world is paying for gasoline.. Your economy is crumbling, your President Bush has in a few years put your "world-wide reputation" in a bottom-low position, far lower than it was in the Vietnam conflict. (probably a world record for PR decline) You are likely to shortly face a 3- 5 time increase in gasoline/oil prices. Do you think that you are able to take down the Chinese economy by military power ?? Nah, you are going down, down, down. What you seed is what you get... On 27 Jun 2005 09:38:26 -0700, "Tim" wrote: Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message om... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. Your explanation is the reason so many other things have been sold to you with little foundation beneath them. |
China is an oil importer! They require oil to supply the factories that
produce all that made in China stuff. Is why they bid an extremely high price for Unocal Oil. 1% if Unocal's oil reserves are US based, the other 99% are in Asia. Now tell me why oil is increasing because of Bush and not the old supply and demand curve? We and China have fairly strong economies. And add India to the mix. wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... That's: Bad for Bush Bad for the US Bad for boating. :-( I agree. And what exactly did Bush have to do with this? Here you go Jim: Don't Blame OPEC; Higher Gas Prices Are Almost Entirely Bush's Fault Dave Lindorff, ILCA Associate Member What is making oil so expensive is not energy policy or even SUV's, dangerous as those are for the environment. It's Bush's massive deficits and his willful destruction of the US dollar that has gas selling at $2.30 a gallon and rising. There's been a lot of hand-wringing going on among economists and politicians, and a lot of fuming at the gas pump by consumers over the soaring price of oil over the last two years. Increasingly, concern is being expressed by treasury officials and economists about the negative impact soaring oil prices and related gas prices could have on the overall economy. Politicians--especially Republicans--are also fretting, since the thousands of extra dollars consumers are now spending on electricity, home heating and gasoline have, for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, more than cancelled out any minimal benefits they saw from the president's tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The focus of all this anger and angst is oil prices. As a result, everyone is looking at culprits in the wrong place, blaming wasteful energy use, OPEC production quotas, monopolistic oil companies and/or conniving oil traders. In fact the real culprit behind these higher oil prices is the Bush Administration, which, thanks to its massive deficits and tax give-aways to the rich and corporations, to its war spending, and to its failure to combat unprecedented and ever-larger trade deficits, has been causing the dollar to plunge in value. Oil is a commodity and it is priced in dollars. If dollars decline in value, then the price of oil will rise in inverse proportion. One need only look at Europe to see what this means. Over the period from February 1, 2003, just before the start of the Iraq War, when oil prices began to rise in earnest, to Feb. 1, 2005, the price of a barrel of oil in dollars rose about 30 percent, from $30.13 a barrel to $42.91 a barrel. But over that same period of time, the Euro, Europe's new combined currency, rose 21 percent against the U.S. dollar, from .93 Euros to the dollar in February, 2003 to just .77 to the U.S. dollar in February, 2005. For Europeans, then, the net rise in oil prices over the two years of the Iraq War has been just 9 percent, or less than 5 percent per year--hardly the kind of energy inflation that would cause economic problems. And this situation is likely to get only worse. Some Wall Street oil industry analysts are now predicting that oil could, before too long, hit $100 a barrel. What they are saying really is that the dollar is likely to fall in value by 50 percent. Should that happen, though, the OPEC states would likely at some point along the way decide that it is ridiculous for them to continue pricing oil in dollars, since the piles of dollars filling their bank vaults will be losing value faster than their oil wells are being drained. At some point, the oil producing states, including Russia and Norway, will inevitably switch to pricing their oil in a basket of currencies--a basket that would prominently feature the Euro and probably the Japanese Yen. At that point there would be little left to prop up the dollar, and it could end up becoming little better than a Third World currency. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. Your explanation is the reason so many other things have been sold to you with little foundation beneath them. *Your* referenced article provides all the proof I need. It states what I did above, but you seem unable to grasp it. "Oil prices hit a new record above $60 a barrel on Monday, driven by demand growth resilience in the face of high fuel cost..." "The market is testing higher to see what price levels this demand can endure," "...with only a significant pull-back in demand from an economic slowdown seen likely to tame prices." "spare capacity is limited to small unused volumes in Saudi Arabia." Your own article proves you wrong. You didn't read for content, you just keyed in on part of one sentence. The article is making the case that the oil prices are being raised because the market conditions of "demand growth" and "tight supply" exist, thereby enabling the higher prices. For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om... For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. The price is not connected with the physical reality of the supply. It is being determined by traders who bet on things that have not happened yet. Do you understand the futures market? Do you know what it is? Zzzzzzzzzz........... |
1 Attachment(s)
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... If that's allowed to happen, we should reinstate the firing squad as a method of justice. But, that would empty out the Senate completely. Hmmm.... White House says procedures in place to vet CNOOc's Unocal bid Last Update: 4:16 PM ET June 27, 2005 WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The Bush administration said Monday that there is an established procedure for reviewing the security implications of any successful bid by China's CNOOC Ltd. (CEO) for Unocal Corp. (UCL). "If it (the bid) were to go through, like all foreign-based transactions, there is a regulatory process that will be followed to address any national security concerns," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "In other words, there are procedures in place and if a bid goes through, then we would expect the appropriate procedures to be followed," he added. CNOOC has said it would be willing to pay $18.5 billion for Unocal, outbidding U.S. oil company Chevron Corp.'s (CVX) $16 billion-plus offer. CNOOC is 70% owned by the Chinese state. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... If that's allowed to happen, we should reinstate the firing squad as a method of justice. But, that would empty out the Senate completely. Hmmm.... Bush expects review of China oil bid W. House wants security review for proposed deal to buy Unocal; Chinese firm vows to keep U.S. jobs. June 27, 2005: 3:19 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration expects an appropriate national and economic security review if China's CNOOC Ltd. is the winning bidder for Unocal Corp., a White House spokesman said Monday, while CNOOC vowed to keep U.S. jobs if it should acquire the oil company. "There are procedures in place, and if a bid goes through then we would expect the appropriate procedures to be followed," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. He said the White House was following the issue closely. Such transactions are typically reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which determines whether a deal in which a foreign company buying an American company poses risks to national or economic security. CNOOC offered $18.5 billion in cash last week to acquire the U.S.-based Unocal (up $0.29 to $65.97, Research), a richer bid than the $16-billion plus cash and stock offer it already has accepted from Chevron Corp. (up $0.37 to $57.06, Research) Chevron is pushing for an August vote on its offer. Separately, CNOOC reiterated Monday its commitment to not only retain the jobs of "substantially" all of Unocal Corp.'s staff, but also keep its U.S. oil and gas production output in the United States, according to a letter submitted members of Congress. The CNOOC letter came in response to a letter from more than 40 U.S. lawmakers urging the Bush administration to take a closer look at the bid. "We had planned for and want to participate in a (government) review of the transaction as soon as possible," CNOOC Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Fu Chengyu said in a statement. "We believe it is vital to the success of the possible merged company." Executives from CNOOC are headed to the United States this week to discuss the bid with Unocal, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters Monday. CNOOC has said all along it welcomed a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a body chaired by the secretary of the Treasury that reviews acquisitions of U.S. companies by foreign concerns where there could be national-security implications. |
How much you wanna bet the deal goes through, and your moron president
announces a short list of absurd reasons why it's a great idea? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com