|
Diaster in waiting....
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... I, for one, am looking forward to a greater number of boating related posts from down Naples way. When I'm boating and fishing, I spend less time here talking about boating and fishing. But red tide is pretty thick here right now, so expect more frequent posts...but don't hold your breath that they're all about boating. I figured you were busy trying to figure out how to help your president out of the strategic corner he painted himself into. You caught me. But now that he's out (45% approval rating according to Rasmussen), I'm baaaaaaaaaaaccccckkk. ;-) |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. |
Diaster in waiting....
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? |
Diaster in waiting....
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:05:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:
In the last couple of months, I've caught a couple of personal bests: a 35lb. bull dolphin, a 30 lb. kingfish, and a 9 foot nurse shark. I've never been fortunate enough to catch a dolphin. I've heard |
Diaster in waiting....
basskisser wrote:
To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much **** for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up like chum! Calm down pointy head. JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report. -- Charlie |
Diaster in waiting....
"Charlie" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much **** for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up like chum! Calm down pointy head. JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report. -- Charlie This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means anything to you, E-mail me Jim |
Diaster in waiting....
"Jim" wrote in message ink.net... "Charlie" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much **** for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up like chum! Calm down pointy head. JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report. -- Charlie This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means anything to you, E-mail me Jim Don't think it's the same Charlie. Eisboch (on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical storm Beryl) |
Diaster in waiting....
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ink.net... "Charlie" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much **** for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up like chum! Calm down pointy head. JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report. -- Charlie This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means anything to you, E-mail me Jim Don't think it's the same Charlie. Eisboch (on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical storm Beryl) WHO? |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. |
Diaster in waiting....
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... I, for one, am looking forward to a greater number of boating related posts from down Naples way. When I'm boating and fishing, I spend less time here talking about boating and fishing. But red tide is pretty thick here right now, so expect more frequent posts...but don't hold your breath that they're all about boating. I figured you were busy trying to figure out how to help your president out of the strategic corner he painted himself into. You caught me. But now that he's out (45% approval rating according to Rasmussen), I'm baaaaaaaaaaaccccckkk. ;-) Oh noooo...not that flake Rasmussen again! 45% two days in a row. But as he points out, it's the trend that matters. "Since mid-May, the seven day rolling average data has shown slight but steady improvement for the President. After bottoming at 38% mid-May, the President’s numbers have gained a point every couple of weeks. Currently, the 7-day rolling average shows the President’s Job Approval at 44%. That’s also the best since mid-April. " |
Diaster in waiting....
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often? |
Diaster in waiting....
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often? By this time next week, he'll be down again. Bet on it. Have you ever seen me being as patient as this? :-) |
Diaster in waiting....
-- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Diaster in waiting....
wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:07:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message groups.com... I, for one, am looking forward to a greater number of boating related posts from down Naples way. When I'm boating and fishing, I spend less time here talking about boating and fishing. But red tide is pretty thick here right now, so expect more frequent posts...but don't hold your breath that they're all about boating. You have to get back in the estuaries. I have been tracking this red tide and Rocky Bay (Estero Bay) was clear. Fish were pretty thick and the dolphins were feeding. Watch the salinity. If it gets much below 5 or 6 you are fairly safe. I'm surprised the bay is that salty right now. With all of the freshwater runoff from the rain, I'd have expected it to be very low salinity. What are the waters around Lover's Key like right now? I was going to go kayaking through the park, but decided against it due to the red tide (and the fact that there is supposed to be 200+ jet skis at some rally there this weekend). |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often? Depends on the number and size of the options held by the institutional guys. |
Diaster in waiting....
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often? Depends on the number and size of the options held by the institutional guys. .....which is all a matter of opinion and guesswork. That should be illegal. |
Diaster in waiting....
Jim wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message hlink.net... "Charlie" wrote in message news:mN2dnbQins5JSSLZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews. com... basskisser wrote: To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much **** for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up like chum! Calm down pointy head. JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report. -- Charlie This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means anything to you, E-mail me Jim Don't think it's the same Charlie. Eisboch (on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical storm Beryl) WHO? That storm is supposed to hit us on the weekend. What the #$$%%$...always on the weekend! |
Diaster in waiting....
"Jim" wrote in message ink.net... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ink.net... This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means anything to you, E-mail me Jim Don't think it's the same Charlie. Eisboch (on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical storm Beryl) WHO? Beryl or Charlie? Who's on first? The Charlie I am refering to had "Wavelength" The Beryl I am refering to is loosing strength and heading more easterly. The annual shark tournament is going on tomorrow and Saturday based out of Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard. Bunch of boats pulled in here at Kingman to await the weather forecast. Good for me, as I got lots of help hauling the new refrig down to the boat and removing the old one. Couple of beers goes a long ways. Eisboch |
Diaster in waiting....
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Oil prices are determined in an open auction market, no one "sets" them. It's all supply and demand, just like the stock market. Uncertainty in the middle east brings out the speculators who buy some oil for future delivery on the hope that prices will rise even further and they can resell their contract for a profit, not unlike buying a house in a rising market in the hope you can resell quickly at a profit. And just like the any other market, speculation on rising prices drives things up even more until a bubble is created, or until supply catches up with demand. The problem with the oil market is that it takes years for new supply to be created, and increases in demand by former third world countries have been out running supply increases for a while now. Not as exciting as some of the cockamamie conspiracy theories that get launched at the barber shop or Joe's tavern, but that's pretty much the way it works. |
Diaster in waiting....
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:22:36 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:
The problem with the oil market is that it takes years for new supply to be created, and increases in demand by former third world countries have been out running supply increases for a while now. Yup, and with no end in sight. Personally, I think the reality is scarier than the conspiracy theories. ;-( |
Diaster in waiting....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Uncertainty in the middle east brings out the speculators There the combination of words I was waiting for someone to make the mistake of using. You're correct. It brings out the speculators. So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. |
Diaster in waiting....
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess. If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. |
Diaster in waiting....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess. If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. I'm not talking about price controls. I'm talking about eliminating the trading of one particular commodity for "sport", by people who are in no way connected to the business. You know as well as I do that the majority of the price jumps have been "on concerns about" things in places like Iraq which, in your wildest dreams, could not have materially affected oil production in any way, shape or form. The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess. If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. I'm not talking about price controls. I'm talking about eliminating the trading of one particular commodity for "sport", by people who are in no way connected to the business. You know as well as I do that the majority of the price jumps have been "on concerns about" things in places like Iraq which, in your wildest dreams, could not have materially affected oil production in any way, shape or form. The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. Ah, but if problems in Iraq expand to other oil producing countries in the region, there could be a "real" problem in the oil supply pipeline. I |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection, Chuck. I keep asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not answer. But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it. ========== He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and he is correct. Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s, nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given price point, opportunities are on the demand side. Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne. Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters. Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100% of the time? According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according to those without a political axe to grind? Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you: "Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence in XYZ country" Explain the bias in that statement. Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it. I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is? Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts. Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often? Depends on the number and size of the options held by the institutional guys. ....which is all a matter of opinion and guesswork. That should be illegal. Absolutely. Guys like Soros shouldn't be able to bankrupt a country through options trading. |
Diaster in waiting....
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... ....which is all a matter of opinion and guesswork. That should be illegal. Absolutely. Guys like Soros shouldn't be able to bankrupt a country through options trading. For once, we appear to agree. |
Diaster in waiting....
"ACP" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess. If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. I'm not talking about price controls. I'm talking about eliminating the trading of one particular commodity for "sport", by people who are in no way connected to the business. You know as well as I do that the majority of the price jumps have been "on concerns about" things in places like Iraq which, in your wildest dreams, could not have materially affected oil production in any way, shape or form. The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. Ah, but if problems in Iraq expand to other oil producing countries in the region, there could be a "real" problem in the oil supply pipeline. That's "if". In the past, they have not. Here's a question: What are your 3 favorite main courses for dinner? |
Diaster in waiting....
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. It's called free market capitalism. The opposite of which is ??? There are countries in the world that support your point of view. Why not consider relocating? Rochester, NY is a lousy place to spend the winter in any case, warm up a little and enjoy life. I grew up 50 miles east of there and have never looked back. It was a great place to be from. |
Diaster in waiting....
Wayne.B wrote: If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. The "free market" explanation for $4/gallon gas at the fuel dock and the skyrocketing costs of chemicals that will soon put the price of new fiberglass boats up to the stratosphere doesn't really work. In a free market, competition to produce expands as demand to consume expands and tends to moderate prices. Companies are forced to become more efficient to flourish, even in prosperous times. Demand to consume petroleum products is growing, but there are so many barriers to the marketplace that new suppliers are not emerging. In fact, the old suppliers are merging and competition is actually decreasing. There is no "free market" dynamic in the oil industry to defend. We often hear that the "oil companies are only grossing 15-cents a gallon!". Nonsense. That's their gross at the gas pump- pumps sitting in gas stations now primarily owned by the big oil companies rather than independent operators. The companies book "internal" profits as crude flows from one subsidiary that pumps the oil, to another subsidiary that transports the crude, to another subsidiary that refines the crude, to another that distributes it, etc. Total oil company profits are currently about 90-cents per gallon, up from closer to 50-cents (yes, that's an 80 percent increase) a year or so ago. Tracking this increase to supply and demand would tend to indicate that somehow the oil companies sold 80 or 90 pecent more fuel. Didn't, of course. That 80% increase in the profit portion of the price of a gallon of gas at the fuel dock is also pretty consistent with the increase in coporate profits.....for example, Conoco/Phillips recently reported profits that were up almot 90% from a year earlier. It is possible to bit on supply and demand, I guess. As in "We've got a corner on the supply, you guys have an insatiable demand, so in light of the fact that we have no effective competition tying to place a downward pressure on pricing we will simply continue to raise the prices as high and as fast as we want to........" A cut 'n paste analysis of pricing and profit follows: "In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75% higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest quarterly profit ever reported by a US company. For the 3rd quarter of 2005, ChevronTexaco reported a 53% increase to nearly $4 billion; and ConocoPhillips?s profits were up 89% to $3.8 billion. Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and a car and driver. While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the world." "In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million." After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: ?Your sacrifice appears to be nothing.? According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005. These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back." ************* Evelyn Pringle - (Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America) All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. |
Diaster in waiting....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. It's called free market capitalism. The opposite of which is ??? What business are (or were) you in, Wayne? |
Diaster in waiting....
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "ACP" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:39:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: So, a bunch of suits are playing games and sending a ripple effect throughout the economy. Time for the law to change. Ahhhh yes, government price controls. Great idea, have you ever seen it in action? You wouldn't be able to buy oil at any price because everyone would be on allocation, and another giant federal bureauacracy would spring up to (mis)manage the whole mess. If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. I'm not talking about price controls. I'm talking about eliminating the trading of one particular commodity for "sport", by people who are in no way connected to the business. You know as well as I do that the majority of the price jumps have been "on concerns about" things in places like Iraq which, in your wildest dreams, could not have materially affected oil production in any way, shape or form. The concept is as stupid as private investors selling all their mutual funds because Home Depot reports bad earnings for the last quarter. Ah, but if problems in Iraq expand to other oil producing countries in the region, there could be a "real" problem in the oil supply pipeline. That's "if". In the past, they have not. Here's a question: What are your 3 favorite main courses for dinner? The past does not always indicate the future. "If" Bush 43 hadn't been elected. "If" Gore HAD been elected. "If Kerry HAD been elected. Chicken, Fish, and Pizza.... |
Diaster in waiting....
Chuck Gould wrote:
All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. I think the 'oil executives' should be the *******s considered terrorists. |
Diaster in waiting....
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... Wayne.B wrote: If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. The "free market" explanation for $4/gallon gas at the fuel dock and the skyrocketing costs of chemicals that will soon put the price of new fiberglass boats up to the stratosphere doesn't really work. In a free market, competition to produce expands as demand to consume expands and tends to moderate prices. Companies are forced to become more efficient to flourish, even in prosperous times. Demand to consume petroleum products is growing, but there are so many barriers to the marketplace that new suppliers are not emerging. In fact, the old suppliers are merging and competition is actually decreasing. There is no "free market" dynamic in the oil industry to defend. We often hear that the "oil companies are only grossing 15-cents a gallon!". Nonsense. That's their gross at the gas pump- pumps sitting in gas stations now primarily owned by the big oil companies rather than independent operators. The companies book "internal" profits as crude flows from one subsidiary that pumps the oil, to another subsidiary that transports the crude, to another subsidiary that refines the crude, to another that distributes it, etc. Total oil company profits are currently about 90-cents per gallon, up from closer to 50-cents (yes, that's an 80 percent increase) a year or so ago. Tracking this increase to supply and demand would tend to indicate that somehow the oil companies sold 80 or 90 pecent more fuel. Didn't, of course. That 80% increase in the profit portion of the price of a gallon of gas at the fuel dock is also pretty consistent with the increase in coporate profits.....for example, Conoco/Phillips recently reported profits that were up almot 90% from a year earlier. It is possible to bit on supply and demand, I guess. As in "We've got a corner on the supply, you guys have an insatiable demand, so in light of the fact that we have no effective competition tying to place a downward pressure on pricing we will simply continue to raise the prices as high and as fast as we want to........" A cut 'n paste analysis of pricing and profit follows: "In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75% higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest quarterly profit ever reported by a US company. For the 3rd quarter of 2005, ChevronTexaco reported a 53% increase to nearly $4 billion; and ConocoPhillips?s profits were up 89% to $3.8 billion. Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and a car and driver. While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the world." "In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million." After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: ?Your sacrifice appears to be nothing.? According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005. These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back." ************* Evelyn Pringle - (Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America) All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. Exxon 3Q 2005 gross profit 9.8% Citigroup 2004 gross profit 15.7% Altria Group 2004 gross profit 22% Merck 2004 gross profit 25.3% So there are other devils in the wood pile. Figures from: http://tinyurl.com/dj683 |
Diaster in waiting....
Don White wrote: Chuck Gould wrote: All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. I think the 'oil executives' should be the *******s considered terrorists. Not at all. They have found a way to exploit the system, and are doing so. I'm surprised that they didn't realize, long ago, that there is no practical upward limit to the amount they can raise prices. Even Bush says, "We're addicted to oil". We are, and the Big Oil boys have a corner on the crack supply. Doesn't matter how high the price goes, we will pay. And if the only thing a person gives a ding about is the amount of money going into the profit column on the p&l statement, (with no regard to social costs generated by prices spiraling out of sight) there's nothing wrong with doubling, tripling, or quintupling quarter to quarter profits from the sale of a resource that for many people isn't discretionary, but rather essential. What is disingenuous, however, is the constant running and ducking behind "free market" and "supply and demand" excuses or the greatest belly laugh of all, "our margin per gallon is only a few cents." Hoist the skull and crossbones on the corporate spreader, clear for action, and stand proud. I'd have more respect for BIG OIL if they would just say, plainly, "We're going to gouge you, simply because we can, and if you don't like it you can park your car or sell your boat. With his $30-million annual salary, our CEO is contracting for a new 180-footer, so don't come around here with some crap that these high oil prices make boating unaffordable! As far as we're concerned, these high prices make boating more affordable than ever. Neener, neener, neener." |
Diaster in waiting....
On 21 Jul 2006 08:45:27 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: Wayne.B wrote: If you think commodities are such an easy get-rich-quick scheme, why not put on your own "suit" and throw some money in the ring. A quick call or two to your broker and you can be a master of the universe also. The "free market" explanation for $4/gallon gas at the fuel dock and the skyrocketing costs of chemicals that will soon put the price of new fiberglass boats up to the stratosphere doesn't really work. In a free market, competition to produce expands as demand to consume expands and tends to moderate prices. Companies are forced to become more efficient to flourish, even in prosperous times. Demand to consume petroleum products is growing, but there are so many barriers to the marketplace that new suppliers are not emerging. In fact, the old suppliers are merging and competition is actually decreasing. There is no "free market" dynamic in the oil industry to defend. We often hear that the "oil companies are only grossing 15-cents a gallon!". Nonsense. That's their gross at the gas pump- pumps sitting in gas stations now primarily owned by the big oil companies rather than independent operators. The companies book "internal" profits as crude flows from one subsidiary that pumps the oil, to another subsidiary that transports the crude, to another subsidiary that refines the crude, to another that distributes it, etc. Total oil company profits are currently about 90-cents per gallon, up from closer to 50-cents (yes, that's an 80 percent increase) a year or so ago. Tracking this increase to supply and demand would tend to indicate that somehow the oil companies sold 80 or 90 pecent more fuel. Didn't, of course. That 80% increase in the profit portion of the price of a gallon of gas at the fuel dock is also pretty consistent with the increase in coporate profits.....for example, Conoco/Phillips recently reported profits that were up almot 90% from a year earlier. It is possible to bit on supply and demand, I guess. As in "We've got a corner on the supply, you guys have an insatiable demand, so in light of the fact that we have no effective competition tying to place a downward pressure on pricing we will simply continue to raise the prices as high and as fast as we want to........" A cut 'n paste analysis of pricing and profit follows: "In 2005, Exxon reported third-quarter profits of $9.92 billion, 75% higher than its third-quarter earnings in 2004, and the largest quarterly profit ever reported by a US company. For the 3rd quarter of 2005, ChevronTexaco reported a 53% increase to nearly $4 billion; and ConocoPhillips?s profits were up 89% to $3.8 billion. Exxon is reportedly giving its retiring chairman, Lee Raymond, a package worth nearly $400 million, in combined pension, stock options and other perks, including a $1 million consulting deal, the use of a corporate jet for professional purposes, 2 years of home security, and a car and driver. While testifying at a Congressional hearing last November, Raymond claimed that high gas prices were a result of supply and demand. "We're all in this together," he told members of Congress, "everywhere in the world." "In 2004, Mr. Raymond," Senator, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), was quick to point out, "your bonus was over $3.6 million." After exhibiting a chart revealing the pay scale for each of the CEOs at the hearing, Senator Boxer told the oil executives: ?Your sacrifice appears to be nothing.? According to Exxon's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Raymond's paycheck rose to $51.1 million in 2005. These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back." ************* Evelyn Pringle - (Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America) All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. So Raymond's check was about half of one percent of the profits. That doesn't sound obscene. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Diaster in waiting....
On 21 Jul 2006 08:45:27 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: Snipped These profits and CEO salaries are obscene at a time when the elderly and families with young children are struggling every day to keep their homes heated and fill up the gas tank to drive to work and back." ************* Evelyn Pringle - (Evelyn Pringle is an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America) All something to think about while watching the price wheels whirl like an old time Vegas slot machine next time you're pumping fuel into the good ship CostaLotta. PS. It does sound like you're trying to make a political statement here. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John |
Diaster in waiting....
ACP wrote: Exxon 3Q 2005 gross profit 9.8% Citigroup 2004 gross profit 15.7% Altria Group 2004 gross profit 22% Merck 2004 gross profit 25.3% So there are other devils in the wood pile. Aren't you comparing one quarter's profits for Exxon with a previoius year's profits for the other companies? Percentages can be deceiving. For instance, if Joe's Bait Shop and Outboard Motor Repair made $10,000 in 2004 and managed to increase that astonishing number to $20,000 in 2005, profits are up "100%". Somehow, I think Exxon made more than Joe's Bait Shop. What is more revealing is the total dollar amount of the profit and how it has changed from previous years. What is more pertinent to a discussion of how oil company profits influence the price of a gallon of fuel at the fuel dock is an examination of how much corporate profit, per gallon, is included in the price. That is currently about 90 cents, all in all done. It was closer to 50 cents in the spring of 2005. Some of the firms you cite are drug companies. I think that's where the current crop of oil execs learned their trade. "Oh, you don't want to spend $400 per pill for your medicine? Well, you do have a choice. You can die. (and we don't care, either way)." |
Diaster in waiting....
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. There's very little relationship between the profits oil companies report and the money they generate/make/bury. There are 1001 ways to legally manipulate all sorts of numbers in the energy business. Or any business, really. Eisboch |
Diaster in waiting....
On 21 Jul 2006 09:35:13 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: I'm surprised that they didn't realize, long ago, that there is no practical upward limit to the amount they can raise prices. Interestingly enough they do not "raise" prices. They buy and sell on the open market like everyone else. It's called supply and demand, open auction market, etc. When the market is willing to pay more for oil, their inventory is woth more (both in and above ground). If their inventory is worth more, they make more money, no conspiracy theories necessary. Should they be required to give it away at below market value because our boating is costing us a bit more? For the most part the big oil companies are highly efficient, with huge investments in exploration, extraction, refining and distribution. Who would be willing to make investments like that if not allowed to make a profit? Who would be willing to invest in the magazine business if not allowed to make a profit? Get in there and buy some oil yourself. The Wall Street Journal quotes wholesale commodities prices every day. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com