When Bush took office...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:EzEZi.200735$1y4.155047@pd7urf2no...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 10, 9:49 pm, " JimH" ask wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.
And the highest gasoline prices were under the leadership of Carter.
And your point is?
Just another data point with which to bury Republicans next year.
Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Why would gasoline prices be different today if a Democrat were in
office?
Well I'm not worried about it. Pres. Hillary Obama will get it right
back down to a "buck forty-nine" in just six months, and will have
exec. reps on a rope just like a stringer fll of blue gills.
Nobody will get the price down until we eliminate oil speculation by
investors who have absolutely no connection with the oil business.
Most of the increases in gasoline prices for the last year are due to the
devaluation of the greenback, not in any real way has the value of a
barrel of oil changed.

It is opposite thinking from what politicians preach. A paper currency is
just like stock. It goes up when people want it, and down when people
don't want it. Just like commodities, currency fluxuates in value.

If the US fed raised interest rates and tightened up the money supply the
dollar would have more value. Does not congress work with the Fed on such
maters?

Combine this with sub-prime mortgages and asset backed paper liquidity
problems....

It is more accurate to think of the barrel of oil value being constant and
the currency has lost value. If you had 100% of your investments in a
stable currency last year, they would have gone up 20% against the USD not
including interest.

Blame government monetary policy.


All true, but I stand by my original comment. Oil is one commodity which
should be untouchable by recreational speculators. I'm talking illegal, go
to jail, that sort of thing. You know I'm right.

Why should oil be off limits to "recreational" speculators? A commodity
is a commodity and should be treated as such regardless of who is
speculating. Those "recreational" speculators can and do become the
institutional speculators of the future.

When Bush took office...
 

HK wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
" JimH" ask wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline
prices.
That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various ways.

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of
them.......eh? Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.

Remind me again who has control of Congress.

Good point.

A good video on this:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...ch&pli ndex=1



Ack! RonPaulCrackPotLoonitarianAlert!

Dennis Kucinich, I see UFOs.

When Bush took office...
 

When Bush took office...
 

Jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.


And oil was $25 a barrel.

And there was a lot less war in the world.

He campaigned on not doing nation building and humility in foreign policy.

You have got to be kidding? There were many, many more wars going on
when Carter was in office. Go back and look at the NYT, WP and other
papers of record.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:41:02 GMT, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Might be 30,000 feet, but very interesting view point. I didn't follow
sub-prime that closely. In fact, I divested almost all my mortgage/bond
instruments some 4-5 years ago now as to me the risk/reward curve was wrong.
3-4% is a joke given "real" inflation rates.


It took me a while to figure out why big name, first tier financial
institutions were interested in sub-prime lending at all. It only
makes sense in terms of creating high yield bonds for the "carry
trade" customers. Unfortunately the big guys not only swallowed some
of their own medicine but also got caught holding inventory as well. I
believe there are some other "bag holders" out there that haven't been
forced to report their losses yet.

But what you say, also means quite a bit of loan/bond "paper" is just that,
a big paper write down. Because if they borrowed Japanese Yen last year at
this time, they owe 20-30% more in USD today above it's face value. Sort of
like a uncovered put option gone bad.


Yes, real bad. It's a classic case of not understanding all of the
risks, and not managing them well. The bond rating agencies like S&P
share some of the blame and there may be some big lawsuits as the
fallout spreads.

It will be interesting to see how the Fed/Banks work this one. But bet it
isn't going to be pretty. Maybe even see $150/barrel yet. Or maybe they
can't afford to let that happen and jack rates fast. Hard to tell. But my
bet is to watch closely what the big Fed related banks are doing. If they
start buying discounted paper the bottom is near. But that may be a ways
off.

Time will tell. The Fed has only limited control at this point and
all of their choices have negative political ramifications sooner or
later.

When Bush took office...
 

jps wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:00:32 -0500, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask
wrote:
Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in
gasoline prices.
That's easy:
- The Iraq war
- Huge federal defecits
- Weak dollar
- Poor energy policies
- Huge trade imbalance
They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various
ways.
And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of
them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.
Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working
majority.
Nice try but no cigar for you.
I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had
"control" of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...

There is already a socialized medicine program whose existence you
approve of, and might even admire. If I told you that I had the power
to end this program and that I intended to do so, you'd say nasty
things about me.

Guess what this program is.

And when the Dems gain control, all will be sweetness and light. Ha!

You of course are familiar with the saying "lesser of two evils."
You'd prefer the more evil was left in charge?

Evil is subjective. Right now we have the evil witch Pelosi and the evil
prick Reid ruining congress.

Dems, while not effective, are at least focused on more positive
outcomes. The Republicans will bankrupt us with bullets tax cuts and
the Dems with social programs.

"While not effective?" The Dems are less than not effective. They are
pursing political ends rather than doing what this country needs and
that is long term planning. What do we, the USA, need to do to continue
to be the sole super power for the next 100 years?


At least the social programs benefit someone of than arms
manufacturers and oil companies.

Social programs are a drain on the productivity of the USA. Let the
churches and charitable organizations help out the down trodden.

Which do you prefer?

I prefer perpetuating the "oil" companies over social programs.

When Bush took office...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Lu Powell" wrote in message
. ..
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask
wrote:
Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline
prices.
That's easy:
- The Iraq war
- Huge federal defecits
- Weak dollar
- Poor energy policies
- Huge trade imbalance
They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various
ways.
And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of
them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.
Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working majority.
Nice try but no cigar for you.
I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had "control"
of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...

There is already a socialized medicine program whose existence you
approve of, and might even admire. If I told you that I had the power to
end this program and that I intended to do so, you'd say nasty things
about me.

Guess what this program is.

And when the Dems gain control, all will be sweetness and light. Ha!



That doesn't answer the question. Please name the socialized medicine which
you approve of and would not want to see eliminated.

I would get rid of Medicaid, Medicare and any other government
sponsored, managed or promoted medicine. People live too long. Those
over 60 should have the decency to do the right thing and die. This
would stop the drain on the Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
And that silly Part D plan that Bush promoted.

When Bush took office...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

Even if, in a perfect world, there were no currency fluctuations, oil
prices would be bounced around by investors who haven't got a clue about
the physical realities of the oil markets. "Oil jumped a dollar a barrel
today in trading, on fears of renewed violence in Baghdad". Excuse me?
Violence in Baghdad, in a country which statistically speaking provides
little or no oil?

This is the same reason tech stocks all take a dive when one of them
announces low earnings. It's bull****. "on fears of"

In a perfect world there would be little speculation due to stability, and
prices would be rather constant. Liquidity of mortgages and bonds would not
be in a crunch. Investors would be happy with a 3-4% return. But for that
to happen the government needs a balanced budget with a **zero** increase in
money supply. Not going to happen any time soon.

When Bush took office...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:43:13 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various ways.

You forgot the most important one - namely defending the dollar
against speculation.

That, in my opinion, is the real crime.

Defend it exactly how? It isn't backed by silver, gold or oil in a known
guaranteed quantity of something of tangible fixed value. Thus, it is open
to speculation.

When Bush took office...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:EzEZi.200735$1y4.155047@pd7urf2no...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 10, 9:49 pm, " JimH" ask wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.
And the highest gasoline prices were under the leadership of
Carter.
And your point is?
Just another data point with which to bury Republicans next year.
Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Why would gasoline prices be different today if a Democrat were in
office?
Well I'm not worried about it. Pres. Hillary Obama will get it right
back down to a "buck forty-nine" in just six months, and will have
exec. reps on a rope just like a stringer fll of blue gills.
Nobody will get the price down until we eliminate oil speculation by
investors who have absolutely no connection with the oil business.
Most of the increases in gasoline prices for the last year are due to
the devaluation of the greenback, not in any real way has the value of a
barrel of oil changed.

It is opposite thinking from what politicians preach. A paper currency
is just like stock. It goes up when people want it, and down when
people don't want it. Just like commodities, currency fluxuates in
value.

If the US fed raised interest rates and tightened up the money supply
the dollar would have more value. Does not congress work with the Fed
on such maters?

Combine this with sub-prime mortgages and asset backed paper liquidity
problems....

It is more accurate to think of the barrel of oil value being constant
and the currency has lost value. If you had 100% of your investments in
a stable currency last year, they would have gone up 20% against the USD
not including interest.

Blame government monetary policy.


All true, but I stand by my original comment. Oil is one commodity which
should be untouchable by recreational speculators. I'm talking illegal,
go to jail, that sort of thing. You know I'm right.

Why should oil be off limits to "recreational" speculators? A commodity is
a commodity and should be treated as such regardless of who is
speculating. Those "recreational" speculators can and do become the
institutional speculators of the future.



Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

When Bush took office...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..


That doesn't answer the question. Please name the socialized medicine
which you approve of and would not want to see eliminated.

I would get rid of Medicaid, Medicare and any other government sponsored,
managed or promoted medicine. People live too long. Those over 60 should
have the decency to do the right thing and die. This would stop the drain
on the Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And that silly Part D
plan that Bush promoted.



There's one more example. It fits the definition nicely. Here's a pretty
generic definition:

"medical and hospital services for the members of a class or population
administered by an organized group (as a state agency) and paid for from
funds obtained usually by assessments, philanthropy, or taxation"

This is easy. Think hard. We need to finish this branch of the discussion
before justwait's attention span fizzles.

When Bush took office...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:EzEZi.200735$1y4.155047@pd7urf2no...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tim" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 10, 9:49 pm, " JimH" ask wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.
And the highest gasoline prices were under the leadership of
Carter.
And your point is?
Just another data point with which to bury Republicans next year.
Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Why would gasoline prices be different today if a Democrat were in
office?
Well I'm not worried about it. Pres. Hillary Obama will get it right
back down to a "buck forty-nine" in just six months, and will have
exec. reps on a rope just like a stringer fll of blue gills.
Nobody will get the price down until we eliminate oil speculation by
investors who have absolutely no connection with the oil business.
Most of the increases in gasoline prices for the last year are due to
the devaluation of the greenback, not in any real way has the value of a
barrel of oil changed.

It is opposite thinking from what politicians preach. A paper currency
is just like stock. It goes up when people want it, and down when
people don't want it. Just like commodities, currency fluxuates in
value.

If the US fed raised interest rates and tightened up the money supply
the dollar would have more value. Does not congress work with the Fed
on such maters?

Combine this with sub-prime mortgages and asset backed paper liquidity
problems....

It is more accurate to think of the barrel of oil value being constant
and the currency has lost value. If you had 100% of your investments in
a stable currency last year, they would have gone up 20% against the USD
not including interest.

Blame government monetary policy.

All true, but I stand by my original comment. Oil is one commodity which
should be untouchable by recreational speculators. I'm talking illegal,
go to jail, that sort of thing. You know I'm right.
Why should oil be off limits to "recreational" speculators? A commodity is
a commodity and should be treated as such regardless of who is
speculating. Those "recreational" speculators can and do become the
institutional speculators of the future.



Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.




The Roman Catholic Church
Any Protestant Church
The Bush Administration

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:59:04 -0500, BAR wrote:

The Dems are less than not effective. They are
pursing political ends rather than doing what this country needs and
that is long term planning.

Heh, and the republicans are doing what? The republicans have lost
their way as the traditional advocates of fiscal stability. There are
many reasons for that, none of which are on topic for this newsgroup.

I'd be happy to discuss via EMAIL if anyone is interested.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:41:03 GMT, "Canuck57"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 00:43:13 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various ways.

You forgot the most important one - namely defending the dollar
against speculation.

That, in my opinion, is the real crime.

Defend it exactly how? It isn't backed by silver, gold or oil in a known
guaranteed quantity of something of tangible fixed value. Thus, it is open
to speculation.

Duh - by buying dollars.

You know - like over governments do?

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

When Bush took office...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of a
commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other answer".

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:32:06 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of them.......eh? Nice
try Wayne.

Please don't let my facts get in the way of your opinions. I'd be
happy to discuss via EMAIL if you'd like.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

When Bush took office...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

When Bush took office...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

When Bush took office...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:54:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:14:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

There's lots on the web about futures markets.
I'm not sure why you're bitching about commodities futures, which
spot markets always bring quickly to reality.
It's the equities markets - Wall Street - that has weakened the
dollar, and the U.S.
If you seriously think that the equity market caps of many companies
are more real than a commodity futures price, try liquidating the
shares of a large corporation for actual cash and see what it brings.
Wall Street is more of a fantasy than any commodity futures market.
Most equities just doesn't reach the real spot market - not yet
anyway.
Any return on Wall Street equities beyond paid dividends is the result
of speculative forces, and nothing else.
Gambling is gambling. Poker, craps, horses, equities, futures, real
estate. Your pick.

--Vic

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of a stock to a level that's
absurd,
you (and I mean specifically YOU) do not have to buy that stock at that
price.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation, because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation, because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

When Bush took office...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks) doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up, and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect it
from the industry.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks) doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up, and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect it
from the industry.

You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

When Bush took office...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the
games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic

Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic

You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks)
doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up,
and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to
buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect
it
from the industry.

You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

No buck is clean.

As far as the millions of Americans you mentioned, just over half of them
are stupid, according to some inarguably accurate surveys done since 2002.
Their thoughts about investments are irrelevent.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:09:54 -0000, Tim wrote:

On Nov 11, 12:19 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Nov 10, 9:49 pm, " JimH" ask wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
...gasoline was $1.46 a gallon.

And the highest gasoline prices were under the leadership of Carter.

And your point is?

Just another data point with which to bury Republicans next year.

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.

Why would gasoline prices be different today if a Democrat were in
office?

Well I'm not worried about it. Pres. Hillary Obama will get it right
back down to a "buck forty-nine" in just six months, and will have
exec. reps on a rope just like a stringer fll of blue gills.

Nobody will get the price down until we eliminate oil speculation by
investors who have absolutely no connection with the oil business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But I also don't know if China having more drivers on their roads int
he past two years than the precious 20 might have to do anything with
it or not.

Plus most of their electricity is supplied by oil instead of coal.


hmmmm.

And we've got an extra 12 million or more automobiles running around the
US.

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:31:44 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:00:32 -0500, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask
wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in
gasoline prices.
That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various
ways.

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of
them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.

Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working
majority.

Nice try but no cigar for you.

I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had
"control" of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...


There is already a socialized medicine program whose existence you
approve of, and might even admire. If I told you that I had the power
to end this program and that I intended to do so, you'd say nasty
things about me.

Guess what this program is.


And when the Dems gain control, all will be sweetness and light. Ha!

You of course are familiar with the saying "lesser of two evils."
You'd prefer the more evil was left in charge?

Dems, while not effective, are at least focused on more positive
outcomes. The Republicans will bankrupt us with bullets tax cuts and
the Dems with social programs.

At least the social programs benefit someone of than arms
manufacturers and oil companies.

Which do you prefer?

jps

A political troll got you out, huh?

When Bush took office...
 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 09:20:45 -0800, jps wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:24:35 -0000,
wrote:

On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
JimH wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:49:44 -0500, " JimH" ask wrote:

Explain how the "Republicans" caused the increase in gasoline prices.
That's easy:

- The Iraq war

- Huge federal defecits

- Weak dollar

- Poor energy policies

- Huge trade imbalance

They are all intertwined with high energy prices in various ways.

And of course the Republicans are the cause of all of them.......eh?
Nice try Wayne.
Yeah, they are.

Remind me again who has control of Congress.
At the moment, no one. The Dems do not yet have a working majority.

Nice try but no cigar for you.

I don't smoke, but my statement is correct. If the Dems had "control" of
Congress, they would have the votes within their party to override a
presidential veto. That's what control means when the other party
controls the white house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****. the only bills that he has vetoed were nothing to do with
our economy, cept to drown it with a huge socialized medical spending
bill for the limosine liberals and illegals... They have not even
tried to put up any appropriations bills or any other energy bills
either, they are just concerened with power and earmark spending...

Wow, your head is further planted than previously estimated. How the
hell did you get it up that far?

I suppose you prefer the facsist method of delivering health care,
where corporate profits eclipse your fellow citizen's health and
well-being?

Yes, I bet you do.

jps

Didn't take you long to start with the personal attack, did it? Let's see
where this leads.

When Bush took office...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of a
commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

When Bush took office...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the
games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic
Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic
You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks)
doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up,
and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to
buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and disconnect
it
from the industry.
You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

No buck is clean.

As far as the millions of Americans you mentioned, just over half of them
are stupid, according to some inarguably accurate surveys done since 2002.
Their thoughts about investments are irrelevent.

Doug, you need to return to the village.

When Bush took office...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:22:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:03:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


If a bunch of fools bid up the price of oil to a level that's
disconnected
from the physical reality of the supply chain, you (and I mean
specifically
YOU) do NOT have to buy higher priced gasoline as a result of the
games
played by the fools.

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes.

--Vic
Then, you either work at home or have excellent mass transportation,
because
millions of people have no choice but to buy gasoline at whatever
price
it's
being sold for. Unlike other products, there is no competition.

Actually, I'm retired. Or I could have said my wife or one of the
kids buy gas for me. But you did say YOU.
Why are you willing to gamble on stocks, but not willing to gamble on
oil? Do you need gas? Or paper Citibank stock certificates?
Just curious.

--Vic
You already answered your own question, Vic. One investment (stocks)
doesn't
affect you, or anyone else. I suppose you could say that if Warren
Buffet
buys a ****load of a certain stock, it becomes news, the stock goes up,
and
that might help you if you also own that stock. But, you didn't have to
buy
that stock or that mutual fund in order to get to work or heat your
home.

You can't say the same for oil. Gamblers fiddle with the price, and it
affects millions of people who have no choice but to buy fuel. That is
why
oil is unique among investments and comparing it to stocks is stupid.

If gamblers want to play with oil, let them do it at OTB, and
disconnect it
from the industry.
You might get an argument from many, many Americans that the purchase
of stock for speculative purposes doesn't affect millions of Americans
in a negative way.
I would be one of them arguing such.
You may think that supporting companies whose only interest is the
bottom line, even if it means the exportation of American jobs and the
destruction of American industry, or the inflation of real estate
prices and escalation of personal bankruptcy is good for you because
you may make some bucks from such speculation.
And I may think it is perfectly fine to make some bucks speculating on
the price of oil.
Which buck is clean?

--Vic

No buck is clean.

As far as the millions of Americans you mentioned, just over half of them
are stupid, according to some inarguably accurate surveys done since
2002. Their thoughts about investments are irrelevent.

Doug, you need to return to the village.



And you need to go out to your garage and play fun games with gasoline and a
lighter.

When Bush took office...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of a
commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other
answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

The definition is disconnected from reality, as are you, child.

When Bush took office...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.

Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

George Soros!

When Bush took office...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of a
commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other
answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

The definition is disconnected from reality, as are you, child.

The market is reality. One persons opinion isn't worth a warm crap unless
it keeps you alive.

The market as a whole is reality in it's finest. The rest is hyperbole.

When Bush took office...
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:OsOZi.200923$Da.162322@pd7urf1no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of
a commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other
answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

The definition is disconnected from reality, as are you, child.

The market is reality. One persons opinion isn't worth a warm crap unless
it keeps you alive.

The market as a whole is reality in it's finest. The rest is hyperbole.


The market is not a church. Get a grip.

When Bush took office...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:OsOZi.200923$Da.162322@pd7urf1no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price of
a commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other
answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

The definition is disconnected from reality, as are you, child.

The market is reality. One persons opinion isn't worth a warm crap
unless it keeps you alive.

The market as a whole is reality in it's finest. The rest is hyperbole.


The market is not a church. Get a grip.

The biggest mistake in examining the market is thinking you know more than
the market. Ditto presuming what god thinks.

When Bush took office...
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:m9PZi.202773$th2.53677@pd7urf3no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:OsOZi.200923$Da.162322@pd7urf1no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:44:16 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Give me 3 examples of institutional speculators, please.
Index hedge funds

Private hedge funds

Sovereign funds.

Reinsurer funds.

Want me to continue? :)

Good work. You get extra chocolate milk later.

Now, why should any of those entities be entitled to move the price
of a commodity that's so crucial to almost everything we do?

Answer: They shouldn't. But, I'll stand by for your creative "other
answer".

Do you understand the definition of commodity?

Pay special attention to 4 http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commodity

The definition is disconnected from reality, as are you, child.

The market is reality. One persons opinion isn't worth a warm crap
unless it keeps you alive.

The market as a whole is reality in it's finest. The rest is hyperbole.


The market is not a church. Get a grip.

The biggest mistake in examining the market is thinking you know more than
the market. Ditto presuming what god thinks.


Other than boating, do you have any other hobbies? What are they?

When Bush took office...
 

Wayne.B wrote:

The republicans have lost their way

I felt that it was important to edit your post, to more accurately
reflect the truth.