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.