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
news 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

On Nov 11, 10:57 am, wrote:
On Nov 11, 9:24 am, wrote:





On Nov 11, 8:55 am, HK wrote:

JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news 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...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that you, Rush Hannity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh Gawd.. please tell me which bills Bush has vetoed... Please tell me
what bills the new congress has tried to pass to fix these problems.
The answers are one and none.... Facts are facts, they are not
putting up bills period, only interested in social engineering. You
must be MSNBC.. they don't really care about facts...

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
news 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

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:46:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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.

There are no "recreational speculators". Everyone who trades
commodity futures is doing it for business reasons of one sort or
another. You may not agree that all of their reasons are valid but
the commodity futures market is absolutely essential both to the
producers and consumers of any given commodity. The markets
themselves help to dampen out large daily price swings by evening out
supply and demand over time, and so called speculators are part of
that process - just like the stock market. It would be more accurate
to call them short term investors.


Sorry, Wayne, but in fact, there are recreational spectators. A mutual fund
investing in the oil futures market - the manager (and the fund's customers)
are all recreational spectators. About a year ago, a Barron's article
mentioned that on some days, players (let's use that shorter description
from now on) place more trades than oil companies who are legitimately
trying to hedge on behalf of their firms.

However, you're right about "business reasons of one sort or another". The
problem is that "one sort" hurts you and I. No matter who plays in these
markets and whether they win or lose, there's someone who makes out like a
bandit: The clearinghouses.

"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
news 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!



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

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:05:18 GMT, "Canuck57"
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.

Well put. And to pay for it the fed "created" too much money diluting the
greenback. Supply and demand. Oversupply of currency and far too low
interest rates generally mean lower value of the currency itself.

But I think most of us didn't anticipate the size and speed of the
devaluation of the USD. As this moves through the supply chain it is
going
to drive a mean kick on inflation and probably interest rates too.

Sub-prime for example. Who wants risky debt, liquidity issues for an
interest rate below inflation? But if they jumped rates to 12+% the cash
would come. Rates are artificially low. That is why there is a crunch.

Most people should think of paper currency just like stock. And
devaluation
depreciates the stock it is going to take more stock to buy the same other
item as it did before. You feel it first with gasoline as inventories are
short. The real value of oil has not changed that much in a year.


The issue with the Fed and low interest rates is more complicated,
dating back to the "dot.com" stock market bust and the desire to avoid
a recession. The fact that rates were maintained too low for too long
led to the real estate bubble and created the demand for sub prime,
high risk lending. Yes, actually created the demand by stimulating
the so called "carry trade". The carry trade is Wall Street's name
for borrowing money at low interest in a venue like Japan, and
investing it at high interest rates somewhere else. It's a can't lose
proposition in a stable investment climate, limited only by your
ability to borrow large amounts of money and safely reinvest it. Since
Japan had virtually unlimited amounts of money to lend, the ability to
reinvest was the primary limitation. Banks and other lending
institutions in the US had already found it profitable to bundle up
various kinds of debt obligations and resell them as bonds to
institutional investors. They were percieved as low risk, high yield
investments and were very popular. They were also very profitable for
the banks who were packaging the loans and selling them off. There
is only so much high quality debt available for repackaging however so
that sparked the sub-prime high risk lending business to create more
opportunities for selling bonds. Like all things the reality is even
more complicated, but that is the one paragraph view from 30,000 feet.

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.

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.

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.

HK wrote:
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.

\


Well, one thing for su Bush hasn't succeeded in his attempts to
nation-build.
He hasn't succeeded in just about anything, except proving his election
was a bad idea. Hopefully all of this makes voters think a little
harder next time.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:46:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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.

There are no "recreational speculators". Everyone who trades
commodity futures is doing it for business reasons of one sort or
another. You may not agree that all of their reasons are valid but
the commodity futures market is absolutely essential both to the
producers and consumers of any given commodity. The markets
themselves help to dampen out large daily price swings by evening out
supply and demand over time, and so called speculators are part of
that process - just like the stock market. It would be more accurate
to call them short term investors.


Sorry, Wayne, but in fact, there are recreational spectators. A mutual
fund investing in the oil futures market - the manager (and the fund's
customers) are all recreational spectators. About a year ago, a Barron's
article mentioned that on some days, players (let's use that shorter
description from now on) place more trades than oil companies who are
legitimately trying to hedge on behalf of their firms.

Not necessarily speculation, maybe for some. The fact of the mater is our
currencies are not stable (and devaluate/inflation) and neither are most
businesses. Those that bought oil futures, gold and items of a constant
value of aquisition were in fact hedging againt a dollar decline. Good
investment move maintaining value for their investors.

Same reason you buy a home. Once purchased, 30 years later it might be
worth 5-10 times what you paid for it. Is this speculation?

The markets will always weed out blind speculators in time.

However, you're right about "business reasons of one sort or another". The
problem is that "one sort" hurts you and I. No matter who plays in these
markets and whether they win or lose, there's someone who makes out like a
bandit: The clearinghouses.

This is a fact. We all hurt, even though I owned a barrel or two of oil, it
isn't good to make 30% when the currency devalues 30%. In a long term
perspective, while hedged on the devaluation I didn't get value.

But I think that is the whole point of this video:

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

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.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
news:LBIZi.199547$Da.7070@pd7urf1no...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:46:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

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.

There are no "recreational speculators". Everyone who trades
commodity futures is doing it for business reasons of one sort or
another. You may not agree that all of their reasons are valid but
the commodity futures market is absolutely essential both to the
producers and consumers of any given commodity. The markets
themselves help to dampen out large daily price swings by evening out
supply and demand over time, and so called speculators are part of
that process - just like the stock market. It would be more accurate
to call them short term investors.


Sorry, Wayne, but in fact, there are recreational spectators. A mutual
fund investing in the oil futures market - the manager (and the fund's
customers) are all recreational spectators. About a year ago, a Barron's
article mentioned that on some days, players (let's use that shorter
description from now on) place more trades than oil companies who are
legitimately trying to hedge on behalf of their firms.

Not necessarily speculation, maybe for some. The fact of the mater is our
currencies are not stable (and devaluate/inflation) and neither are most
businesses. Those that bought oil futures, gold and items of a constant
value of aquisition were in fact hedging againt a dollar decline. Good
investment move maintaining value for their investors.

Same reason you buy a home. Once purchased, 30 years later it might be
worth 5-10 times what you paid for it. Is this speculation?

The markets will always weed out blind speculators in time.

However, you're right about "business reasons of one sort or another".
The problem is that "one sort" hurts you and I. No matter who plays in
these markets and whether they win or lose, there's someone who makes out
like a bandit: The clearinghouses.

This is a fact. We all hurt, even though I owned a barrel or two of oil,
it isn't good to make 30% when the currency devalues 30%. In a long term
perspective, while hedged on the devaluation I didn't get value.

But I think that is the whole point of this video:


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


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"