| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
P. Fritz wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... While fuel prices are in the news a lot these days, we might do well to realize that the value of crude oil hasn't really gone up as much as we think- much of the price pain is because the US dollar has gone down. Oil is an international commodity, and the producers can sell it almost anywhere in the world. The US dollar is getting clobbered on foreign exchanges all around the planet. It took $1.60 Canadian to buy a US dollar about a year ago, and it now takes only about $1.20. It's the same with almost all other currencies vs. the dollar. If we're going to buy an internationally marketable resource and pay for it with a declining currency, why should we be surprised if it takes more of those depreciating dollars to buy the same bbl of oil? Hogwash. Denmark, the Netherlands, and several other countries pay more than $6/gallon for gas. Countries like Iraq pay less than 20 cents. The value of the US dollar has nothing to do with either of those situations. It is simple economics.....but it is not the value of the dollar against foreign currency........It is supply and demand. Right now, demand is nearly equal to supply, THAT is why the cost has increase so dramatically Because supply can barely keep up with demand, the seller will ask for a greater number of dollars (a variable) against a bbl of oil (a constant) when the dollar is weak. Our irresponsible federal spending spree is destroying the dollar and contributing to the increase in the number of dollars demanded for a bbl of oil. I know that's an uncomfortable fact for some people (who insist the R govt can do no wrong) to accept, but it cannot be ignored. By the way, it looks like we're going to be $8 TRILLION in the hole by late September. Wasn't this bout $5.5 Trillion when Bush took office? Heck, even Bush ought to be able to comprehend VETO, it's only a four-letter word. :-) One of you guys in his "approved audience" ought to send him an email and explain that he can exert some control over congressional spendthrifts, if only he will choose to do so. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ All I can say is thank heaven we have the party that pledged to bring us fiscal accountability and reduce government spending in power. Can you imagine where we'd be if those fiscally irresponsible D's were at the helm? |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: wrote in message ups.com... While fuel prices are in the news a lot these days, we might do well to realize that the value of crude oil hasn't really gone up as much as we think- much of the price pain is because the US dollar has gone down. Oil is an international commodity, and the producers can sell it almost anywhere in the world. The US dollar is getting clobbered on foreign exchanges all around the planet. It took $1.60 Canadian to buy a US dollar about a year ago, and it now takes only about $1.20. It's the same with almost all other currencies vs. the dollar. If we're going to buy an internationally marketable resource and pay for it with a declining currency, why should we be surprised if it takes more of those depreciating dollars to buy the same bbl of oil? Hogwash. Denmark, the Netherlands, and several other countries pay more than $6/gallon for gas. Countries like Iraq pay less than 20 cents. The value of the US dollar has nothing to do with either of those situations. "The value of the US dollar has no bearing on how many US dollars Americans must pay for imported oil"? Did you really just advance such a theory, NOYB? Oil prices are based in U.S. dollars. If fifty US dollars buys a barrel of oil, and the dollar's value drops relative to the Euro, then the price of oil appears cheaper to countries that use the Euro. Oil doesn't appear more expensive to people buying it in US dollars! Only supply and demand can do that. Why would you do that? Could it be because the runaway federal spending by the R majority congress and approved by the R president is one of the primary factors causing our dollar to take a beating? A weak dollar is good for trade. We may have some of the highest trade imbalances that we've ever seen...but they're mostly with China. And that's only because China has pegged its currency to the US dollar. If the dollar was strong, the trade imbalance would be even worse because it would cause a larger trade deficit with other countries besides China. Please explain why the relative value of a nation's currency has no effect on the pricing of imported commoditites (such as gourmet Iraqi hogwash). Because the price of oil is based in US dollars. Always. A weak dollar just makes the oil cheaper to other countries. It doesn't make the oil more expensive to the US consumer. However, oil is *not* cheaper to other countries despite the relative strength of their currency. Why? Because the price of oil is a factor of supply and demand (whether that demand is real or perceived)...and not the strength of the US dollar. Your reply overlooks the fact that the seller will demand a greater number of US dollars for a bbl of oil when that currency is weak. Nope again. What drives the price is competition from competing currencies. Not the deflated value of the dollar. The exporters of oil make a vast number of purchases in Euros and other currencies that are ascending against the dollar, and want to maintain or increase their own purchasing power when the transaction is completed. Suppose you accepted returnable pop bottles for a filling. Let's say that the deposit refund in FLA is 5-cents a bottle, so if you accepted payment in bottles, I would need to bring in 4000 pop bottles for a $200 drill and fill at your practice. If the depopsit refund dropped to 4 cents (the value of my currency declined) I would need 5000 pop bottles to pay for the exact same work. Or I could look towards people paying with pop cans if their value is higher relative to the bottles. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Your reply overlooks the fact that the seller will demand a greater
number of US dollars for a bbl of oil when that currency is weak. NOYB wrote: Nope again. You just flunked freshman econ... again... will you (and the rest of the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders) ever learn? ... What drives the price is competition from competing currencies. That is a factor, yes. Not the deflated value of the dollar. Ahem... look up the definition of "deflated" with respect to currency... and re-think this statement... actually, don't "re-" think it, think for the first time... DSK |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"DSK" wrote in message ... Your reply overlooks the fact that the seller will demand a greater number of US dollars for a bbl of oil when that currency is weak. NOYB wrote: Nope again. You just flunked freshman econ... again... will you (and the rest of the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders) ever learn? ... What drives the price is competition from competing currencies. That is a factor, yes. Not the deflated value of the dollar. Ahem... look up the definition of "deflated" with respect to currency... and re-think this statement... actually, don't "re-" think it, think for the first time... It's deflated in value relative to other currencies. But not relative to how much oil a dollar will buy...at least until the other "inflated" currencies have driven the price of oil up. However, this once again has to do with supply and demand. If demand from other countries didn't increase while the dollar's value fell, then the price of oil would actually fall. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:26:19 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: You and your ilk always use the canard of "dependence on foreign oil" as a way to try and change the behavior of the people that live in the US to your liking. The operative word is "dependence". When the economy tanks because of the escalating price of oil, your "ilk" will blame it on Clinton. Or when supplies get tight, and we are in yet another oil war, blame it on the liberals. Or when Chavez says "F* you" and stops shipping us oil, assassinate him. It's a fair trade, blood for oil. Let's see we can crack open ANWR, start drilling of the west coast and the gulf of mexico. We have our own oil fields crank the pumps up on. You pansy's keep talking about our blood for oil trades, well lets start trading blood for oil and start pumping our own. Problem solved. 35 years ago, when the first oil crunch occurred, the smart money was on developing an effective oil policy to prevent future occurrences. That still hasn't happened, but then we aren't very smart, are we? And what did the "smart money" produce? The private sector is fully capabile of developing alternative energy sources without the governments involvement. What are you waiting for? |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
PocoLoco wrote: On 24 Aug 2005 14:51:14 -0700, wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... While fuel prices are in the news a lot these days, we might do well to realize that the value of crude oil hasn't really gone up as much as we think- much of the price pain is because the US dollar has gone down. Oil is an international commodity, and the producers can sell it almost anywhere in the world. The US dollar is getting clobbered on foreign exchanges all around the planet. It took $1.60 Canadian to buy a US dollar about a year ago, and it now takes only about $1.20. It's the same with almost all other currencies vs. the dollar. If we're going to buy an internationally marketable resource and pay for it with a declining currency, why should we be surprised if it takes more of those depreciating dollars to buy the same bbl of oil? Hogwash. Denmark, the Netherlands, and several other countries pay more than $6/gallon for gas. Countries like Iraq pay less than 20 cents. The value of the US dollar has nothing to do with either of those situations. It is simple economics.....but it is not the value of the dollar against foreign currency........It is supply and demand. Right now, demand is nearly equal to supply, THAT is why the cost has increase so dramatically Because supply can barely keep up with demand, the seller will ask for a greater number of dollars (a variable) against a bbl of oil (a constant) when the dollar is weak. Our irresponsible federal spending spree is destroying the dollar and contributing to the increase in the number of dollars demanded for a bbl of oil. I know that's an uncomfortable fact for some people (who insist the R govt can do no wrong) to accept, but it cannot be ignored. By the way, it looks like we're going to be $8 TRILLION in the hole by late September. Wasn't this bout $5.5 Trillion when Bush took office? Heck, even Bush ought to be able to comprehend VETO, it's only a four-letter word. :-) One of you guys in his "approved audience" ought to send him an email and explain that he can exert some control over congressional spendthrifts, if only he will choose to do so. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ All I can say is thank heaven we have the party that pledged to bring us fiscal accountability and reduce government spending in power. Can you imagine where we'd be if those fiscally irresponsible D's were at the helm? Quadrillion? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Good grief. Is "Qaudrillion" what comes after the trillions? I don't have use for many numbers that large so I wouldn't even know. Joking aside, the best combination we have seen in DC in a long time (from a fiscal standpoint) was a Democratic president and a Republican congress. We were actually running a small surplus the last years when Clinton was in office; and whether one cares to credit Clinton or the R's in congress the fact is that we had a handle on spending and budgeting that is now, sadly, lost. We still have much the same congress we had during the 90's, so it is tempting to say that the only factor to have changed significantly is the party in control of the White House. Maybe the D's will take control of congress in the mid-terms and Bush will then begin vetoing some spending bills to confound the opposite party's agenda. If that happens, we will have an opportunity to see if a D congress and a R White House is as fiscally restrained a combination as the opposite alignment proved to be. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24 Aug 2005 16:31:51 -0700, wrote:
PocoLoco wrote: On 24 Aug 2005 14:51:14 -0700, wrote: P. Fritz wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... wrote in message ups.com... While fuel prices are in the news a lot these days, we might do well to realize that the value of crude oil hasn't really gone up as much as we think- much of the price pain is because the US dollar has gone down. Oil is an international commodity, and the producers can sell it almost anywhere in the world. The US dollar is getting clobbered on foreign exchanges all around the planet. It took $1.60 Canadian to buy a US dollar about a year ago, and it now takes only about $1.20. It's the same with almost all other currencies vs. the dollar. If we're going to buy an internationally marketable resource and pay for it with a declining currency, why should we be surprised if it takes more of those depreciating dollars to buy the same bbl of oil? Hogwash. Denmark, the Netherlands, and several other countries pay more than $6/gallon for gas. Countries like Iraq pay less than 20 cents. The value of the US dollar has nothing to do with either of those situations. It is simple economics.....but it is not the value of the dollar against foreign currency........It is supply and demand. Right now, demand is nearly equal to supply, THAT is why the cost has increase so dramatically Because supply can barely keep up with demand, the seller will ask for a greater number of dollars (a variable) against a bbl of oil (a constant) when the dollar is weak. Our irresponsible federal spending spree is destroying the dollar and contributing to the increase in the number of dollars demanded for a bbl of oil. I know that's an uncomfortable fact for some people (who insist the R govt can do no wrong) to accept, but it cannot be ignored. By the way, it looks like we're going to be $8 TRILLION in the hole by late September. Wasn't this bout $5.5 Trillion when Bush took office? Heck, even Bush ought to be able to comprehend VETO, it's only a four-letter word. :-) One of you guys in his "approved audience" ought to send him an email and explain that he can exert some control over congressional spendthrifts, if only he will choose to do so. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ All I can say is thank heaven we have the party that pledged to bring us fiscal accountability and reduce government spending in power. Can you imagine where we'd be if those fiscally irresponsible D's were at the helm? Quadrillion? -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD Good grief. Is "Qaudrillion" what comes after the trillions? I don't have use for many numbers that large so I wouldn't even know. Joking aside, the best combination we have seen in DC in a long time (from a fiscal standpoint) was a Democratic president and a Republican congress. We were actually running a small surplus the last years when Clinton was in office; and whether one cares to credit Clinton or the R's in congress the fact is that we had a handle on spending and budgeting that is now, sadly, lost. We still have much the same congress we had during the 90's, so it is tempting to say that the only factor to have changed significantly is the party in control of the White House. Maybe the D's will take control of congress in the mid-terms and Bush will then begin vetoing some spending bills to confound the opposite party's agenda. If that happens, we will have an opportunity to see if a D congress and a R White House is as fiscally restrained a combination as the opposite alignment proved to be. See, there's another reason the Dems should have run Gephardt. I really think he would have won. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
NOYB wrote:
It's deflated in value relative to other currencies. Really? Who'd a thunk it? ... But not relative to how much oil a dollar will buy... Bzzt, try again ... at least until the other "inflated" currencies have driven the price of oil up. The other currencies are irrelevant to whether or not the dollar is deflated, unless you're sepcificaly talking about the exchange rate. If demand from other countries didn't increase while the dollar's value fell, then the price of oil would actually fall. ??? Better think this one over again too. If the dollars value falls (and BTW this is not deflation) then it will take more of them to buy whatever... oil, bread, ammo, other currency... The basic relationships of monetarism are simple, when you get them wrong you show that you're poorly educated on the subject. Probably parroting some right-wing talk radio nonsense. DSK |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:05:08 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:
Let's see we can crack open ANWR, start drilling of the west coast and the gulf of mexico. We have our own oil fields crank the pumps up on. You pansy's keep talking about our blood for oil trades, well lets start trading blood for oil and start pumping our own. Problem solved. You just don't get it. It can't be done. In this country, oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's, production in 1971 and has been falling ever since. It's not that the oil companies haven't been trying, it's because the oil isn't there anymore. Oil is a *finite* resource, and this country's tank is heading towards EMPTY. Take a look: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/energy-a.htm 35 years ago, when the first oil crunch occurred, the smart money was on developing an effective oil policy to prevent future occurrences. That still hasn't happened, but then we aren't very smart, are we? And what did the "smart money" produce? The private sector is fully capabile of developing alternative energy sources without the governments involvement. What are you waiting for? That very well may be, but when you are heading for a brick wall at 90 mph, stepping on the brakes may be prudent. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
