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