![]() |
Your President At Work
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:07:14 -0400, "Don White"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: Eisboch wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent. ... Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among other reasons. When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."* Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears of renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a country from which we get pretty much zero oil? Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause? Political blame for US election advantage. The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next President is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush? The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT heads back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video games, booze, coke, and drunken driving. Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will run. Got it? Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her? You're still past tense. -- John H Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny? Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just about do it. Show me what was disrespectful of Harry's mom, Don. You must really have a problem with understanding what you read. Whether or not Harry's mom knows he lies about her is not disrespectful of her. For example. Does your wife know that both of your BFF are liars? Now, did I say anything disrespectful of your wife? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Your President At Work
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote: Solution: - build nuclear power plants - build the wind farm off of Cape Cod - drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US - drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do - build more refineries I'll plagiarize that every chance I get. Don't make yourself look silly..... 1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I, also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the carpet. Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in production cost or for some other reason? 2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say, not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about 4 years.... We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country and not see a wind mill farm. 3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town.... Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the oil to power our bombers and submarines. 4) Another geographically challenged thought. But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida? 5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that "lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the bank? The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries. Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of the current countries with significant oil reserves. Go NUCLEAR! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Your President At Work
"BAR" wrote in message . .. Don White wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:23:44 -0500, HK wrote: BAR wrote: Eisboch wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent. ... Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this spring, due to strong demand and a change in formulation, among other reasons. When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the reporter, *"That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."* Strong demand. What a crock of ****. Last spring, it was "on fears of renewed violence in Baghdad". Prices are effected by events in a country from which we get pretty much zero oil? Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause? Political blame for US election advantage. The sad thing is that Bush leaves office as soon as the next President is sworn in on 1/20/09. Why is everyone running against Bush? The sad thing? There will be dancing in the streets when the IDIOT heads back to Crawford, or wherever he plans to go to take up his video games, booze, coke, and drunken driving. Oh...it is the *failed* Bush-GOP policies against which the Dems will run. Got it? Harry, does your mother know you're telling lies about her? You're still past tense. -- John H Back to bringing families into the foolishness here eh Johnny? Time for an extended Goofy cruise..... from now until May would just about do it. Did you lazy son drink all of your beer again? Speaking of idiots........... |
Your President At Work
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause? Only perceived that way by some. OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives. Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right to do whatever we want". yawn............ Well, since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion. The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of oil is, IMO, ..... China. As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization, there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in prices. Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for my son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. The same was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. China was buying up everything that the world could produce. As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population hang up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil prices will continue to rise regardless of what any individual country, including the USA, does. All we can do is find alternatives to oil which is a daunting challenge. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause? Only perceived that way by some. OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives. Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right to do whatever we want". yawn............ Well, since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion. The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of oil is, IMO, ..... China. As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization, there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in prices. Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for my son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. The same was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. China was buying up everything that the world could produce. As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population hang up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil prices will continue to rise regardless of what any individual country, including the USA, does. All we can do is find alternatives to oil which is a daunting challenge. Eisboch Demand from China certainly explain a long term trend. But, it absolutely does NOT explain the weekly ups & downs. I'd like your thoughts on this article, please. Assume it's true, since it is. http://www.thetimes.co.za/Business/A...aspx?id=672709 |
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 3:26*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote: Solution: - build nuclear power plants - build the wind farm off of Cape Cod - drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US - drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do - build more refineries I'll plagiarize that every chance I get. Don't make yourself look silly..... 1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I, also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the carpet. Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in production cost or for some other reason? 2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say, not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about 4 years.... We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country and not see a wind mill farm. 3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town.... Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the oil to power our bombers and submarines. 4) Another geographically challenged thought. But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida? 5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that "lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the bank? The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries. Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of the current countries with significant oil reserves. Go NUCLEAR! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree, but the problem is that it isn't an instant fix by a long shot. It takes a hell of a long time to get a nuke plant built, and online. Was watching an economist and energy expert talking about this just today, and he, like me is all for nuclear energy, but in the meantime thinks, as do I that we need to do more to get solar and wind farms up and running to offset the lag time in getting nuke plants operational. |
Your President At Work
|
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 4:20*pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 13:16:03 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Mar 1, 3:26*pm, John H. wrote: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:29:41 -0500, John H. penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 12:52:23 -0500, BAR wrote: Solution: - build nuclear power plants - build the wind farm off of Cape Cod - drill to pump oil out of all of the oil fields within the US - drill the hell out of the coast of Florida before the Chinese do - build more refineries I'll plagiarize that every chance I get. Don't make yourself look silly..... 1) I pay bills at 2 locations: one coal fired, one nukular fired. The nukular bill is about 1/3 higher. That isn't much of a "deal." I, also, have a problem with sweeping the radioactive waste under the carpet. Which provides the cleaner energy? What other monies will be spent to clean up after the coal? Is the difference in price due to the difference in production cost or for some other reason? 2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say, not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about 4 years.... We are way behind. Take a trip through Denmark. You'll see what wind use is all about. I don't believe it's possible to stop anywhere in the country and not see a wind mill farm. 3) We might need those reserves for something regarding national defense. Don't squander the nest egg for a big night on the town.... Don't know if he meant to pump out the old fields or drill and pump new ones. You made a good point. Once things really get tight, we'll need the oil to power our bombers and submarines. 4) Another geographically challenged thought. But one that makes good sense. Do you think the Chinese are *not* working with the Cubans to drill off the coast of Florida? 5) Tell the oil companies to stop CLOSING refineries. Has anybody figured out that we have 1/2 the refineries we used to have and that "lack of capacity" has the oil companies weeping all of the way to the bank? The oil companies closed old, small, inefficient refineries. Certainly, America can develop technologies that will make oil unnecessary. Then we would have an economic advantage far exceeding of the current countries with significant oil reserves. Go NUCLEAR! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I agree, but the problem is that it isn't an instant fix by a long shot. It takes a hell of a long time to get a nuke plant built, and online. Was watching an economist and energy expert talking about this just today, and he, like me is all for nuclear energy, but in the meantime thinks, as do I that we need to do more to get solar and wind farms up and running to offset the lag time in getting nuke plants operational. Loogy, you should have started talking to the liberals about 20 years ago! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You'd be surprised how many liberals are for those exact same things. It's just that you on the right side (as well as many on the left) tend to lump everyone together that doesn't 100% toe the line, ie: you're either with us, or against us. |
Your President At Work
Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this spring, Analysts wanna scare the price up that high... Bush knew...another lie. |
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 5:09*pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 11:40:00 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: Can somebody please explain to me why high oil prices is perceived as a unique problem to the USA with Bush at the center of the cause? Only perceived that way by some. OTOH, Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan did very little to rein in the profligate waste of oil, and seek alternatives. Everybody wants someone else to fix problems, because we have "the right to do whatever we want". yawn............ Well, *since my guess is as good as any, I'll offer my opinion. The primary reason for the dramatic world-wide increase in the price of oil is, IMO, * ..... *China. As China has gone through it's rapid industrialization and modernization, there have been several shortages of basic materials leading to spikes in prices. *Quality stainless steel plate is becoming difficult to order for my son's business with huge increases in price when you can get it. *The same was (still is to a degree) true with concrete. * China was buying up everything that the world could produce. As China continues to industrialize and more and more of her population hang up their bicycles in favor of newly affordable automobiles, oil prices will continue to rise regardless of what any individual country, including the USA, does. *All we can do is find alternatives to oil which is a daunting challenge. Eisboch Agreed. *Supply and demand. *If you can control the supply when demand is high and you can then test the price ceiling (which we have yet to see).- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. |
Your President At Work
On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote: 2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say, not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about 4 years.... http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...rpc=22&sp=true |
Your President At Work
"Eat Me, Trolls" wrote in message
... Analysts have said that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon by this spring, Analysts wanna scare the price up that high... Bush knew...another lie. One must keep in mind that the companies which process the trading on the futures exchanges make money no matter who trades, and no matter who wins or loses. There probably isn't a presidential candidate who isn't feeding at the trough, in terms of contributions from financial services companies. So, the gambling parlors will never close, and oil prices will never be fully pegged to reality. |
Your President At Work
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:01:04 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: 2) I don't mind ****ing off the Kennedy's, but geographically I hope it is not cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (the studies say, not). Wind is a good way to go, though, and I suspect that the project will be approved this year and we may see a turbine in place in about 4 years.... http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...rpc=22&sp=true Not that I particularly care or am even concerned, but it sure won't surprise me to read a future report by an AGore wannabe that widespread use of wind power has detrimental effects on the earth's natural air currents, seed distribution and overall global tinkering with nature. Nuclear power is the answer. Clean, safe and has been the center of our solar system and of the universe for that matter, for billions of years. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 7:41*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:38sjs3h82ded28g7gqgm79uq7djnd2ag6e@4ax .com... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. *I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. Holy crap, I was just going to bet him and the loser has to answer the drunken dougies questions for a week;) |
Your President At Work
Canuck57 wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. |
Your President At Work
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:41:36 GMT, "Canuck57"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. Save the post - it's a lock. Oh, and short oil sometime in July - say at $68. |
Your President At Work
|
Your President At Work
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. I don't know about that. There's nothing on the horizon to influence it that way. I'd like to hear your reasoning. In a way, I think it would be good for oil to hover around $100 a barrel for a couple of years or more. In the past, every time there has been a sharp uptick in the price of oil a bunch of lip service has been given to finding energy "alternatives" and to decrease or eliminate our dependence on oil. But, as soon as the price retreats back to half of the increase, all the enthusiasm goes away and it's back to business as usual. The current spike in oil prices has produced some serious commitments by industry (more so than governments) to develop alternative energy sources. (the government still thinks "corn" is the answer). The auto industry is tripping over themselves introducing high mileage hybrids. There is a serious revival of interest and new developments in solar power that are very promising and exciting. I was just reading about a new auto soon to be introduced by Volkswagen that is a diesel/electric hybrid (catches my attention!) that offers very good performance while delivering 60+ mpg. For the first time, it seems like the consuming public is having a mind set change and are beginning to accept and even demand highly efficient products. There's even a growing acceptance of the need for new nuclear power plants. We really can't afford to screw up again and treat this oil price cycle as another temporary event because the next cycle will probably put us out of business. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan? or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or Italy? Eisboch |
Your President At Work
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan? or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or Italy? Eisboch Oversight and pressure, and the excess profits tax could be used to help non-profit entities unaffiliated with big oil develop alternative energy sources. |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message
... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically) could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy. |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan? or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or Italy? Eisboch Oversight and pressure, and the excess profits tax could be used to help non-profit entities unaffiliated with big oil develop alternative energy sources. Wistful thinking. Despite your protests, industry drives innovation and technical development, not "non-profit" centers staffed with lifelong members of academia making a living on government grants. I've been exposed to both for many, many years. Industry is what makes things happen and imposing more taxes on it simply slows things down. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically) could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy. "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? |
Your President At Work
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. How will that affect the price of a barrel of oil here? Or in Japan? or in China? or in Sweden? or in Great Britain? or in Germany? or Italy? Eisboch Oversight and pressure, and the excess profits tax could be used to help non-profit entities unaffiliated with big oil develop alternative energy sources. Wistful thinking. Despite your protests, industry drives innovation and technical development, not "non-profit" centers staffed with lifelong members of academia making a living on government grants. I've been exposed to both for many, many years. Industry is what makes things happen and imposing more taxes on it simply slows things down. Eisboch I see no reason to trust Big Oil, and I wasn't suggesting academia. |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically) could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy. "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? Is that why we never see much of Cheney? Is he too busy attending OPEC committee meetings, encouraging them to increase the price of oil? Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. Sure he is Harry. Sure he is. The blame for the price of oil doesn't reside with politicians, current or past. The blame resides with us. Eisboch I think a steep "excess profits tax" would tighten things up a hair, that and members representing the public and responsible to it sitting on big oil boards. Excess profits in what terms? Straight dollars, or percentage? It really wouldn't matter. Unlike the vast majority of businesses, crude oil is priced by a gambling parlor. Even if you (and I mean YOU specifically) could somehow control the profits of the oil companies, they still have to buy crude at prices determined by sheer lunacy. "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? I'm sure they do. But, there are also speculators at work, in the exact same way speculators dick with the price of stocks to the point where their prices are completely disconnected from physical & financial reality. Speculative nonsense: "Oil prices were dampened as well by worries over the U.S. economy after Wall Street fell again Monday on expectations of further fallout from the ongoing credit crisis. The Dow Jones industrials ended below 13,000 for the first time since August." Speculative nonsense: "Oil prices dropped about $1 per barrel Tuesday after a key OPEC member left open the possibility that the oil cartel will increase output and one energy agency lowered its demand forecast." Speculative nonsense: "Energy investors often view stocks as a proxy for economic growth, and in some recent sessions, movements in the oil market have closely followed that of global equities. Stocks rose Monday in Asia and Europe." Speculative nonsense: "Oil prices gained $2 per barrel on concerns over renewed violence in Baghdad." That last one's a real winner, eh? Violence in a city located in a country whose oil production is barely a blip on anyone's radar? That quote came from 2003, by the way. What a surprise: Violence in Baghdad. Bull****. |
Your President At Work
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? I'm sure they do. But, there are also speculators at work, in the exact same way speculators dick with the price of stocks to the point where their prices are completely disconnected from physical & financial reality. Speculative nonsense: Think back. Although laughable when compared to current values, the price of oil quadrupled during the oil "shortage" crisis in the early 70's on Nixon's watch. Later that decade, under Carter it doubled again in less than 12 months. Neither had anything to do with Wall Street, Dick Cheney or secret "Big Oil" meetings with OPEC. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? I'm sure they do. But, there are also speculators at work, in the exact same way speculators dick with the price of stocks to the point where their prices are completely disconnected from physical & financial reality. Speculative nonsense: Think back. Although laughable when compared to current values, the price of oil quadrupled during the oil "shortage" crisis in the early 70's on Nixon's watch. Later that decade, under Carter it doubled again in less than 12 months. Neither had anything to do with Wall Street, Dick Cheney or secret "Big Oil" meetings with OPEC. Eisboch That was then. This is now. And (separate issue), in this discussion, I'm not concerned with any particular politician. In the long list of things you buy regularly, can you think of 5 or 6 whose prices are determined by speculators, causing almost daily price swings? I'm in the grocery biz, and I handle about 500 different products. I don't see this happening. How about shoes, or anything else you buy? |
Your President At Work
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:25:28 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. I don't know about that. There's nothing on the horizon to influence it that way. I'd like to hear your reasoning. It's pretty simple - it's a huge commodity bubble. There is absoutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to support these levels in any sense of the word. It's too much money chasing too little profit - a sort of currency inflation if you will. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am, economic data will provide the catalyst for the crash - sometime around the middle to the end of July. Supplies will rise due to decreased demand. Take this past week for example - crude stocks are at six year highs and gas is at a four year high - distilates are at normal levels - and every one of them experienced a increase in price. It's just not logical, sustainable or in any way makeing economic sense. And when it doesn't make economic sense, it's a bubble. Secondarily, the dollars decline is also unsupported against the Euro, the Loonie and Yen - there is no actual economic reason why the Euro is reaching the values it reached this past week, same with the other currencies we use as a measuring stick for relative value. Eventually, the pendulum will swing back to the safest currency in the world's economic structure the dollar. This will also force the price of oil to return to more rational levels. There will be a glut - you're just starting to see it and by July, it will be not be pretty. I'm willing to say July - may be as last as September, but it will happen and it will be quick when it does. In a way, I think it would be good for oil to hover around $100 a barrel for a couple of years or more. In the past, every time there has been a sharp uptick in the price of oil a bunch of lip service has been given to finding energy "alternatives" and to decrease or eliminate our dependence on oil. But, as soon as the price retreats back to half of the increase, all the enthusiasm goes away and it's back to business as usual. I agree, but if it does, there will be a significant economic dislocation. The current spike in oil prices has produced some serious commitments by industry (more so than governments) to develop alternative energy sources. (the government still thinks "corn" is the answer). The auto industry is tripping over themselves introducing high mileage hybrids. There is a serious revival of interest and new developments in solar power that are very promising and exciting. I was just reading about a new auto soon to be introduced by Volkswagen that is a diesel/electric hybrid (catches my attention!) that offers very good performance while delivering 60+ mpg. About freakin' time - I've been saying that for years. For the first time, it seems like the consuming public is having a mind set change and are beginning to accept and even demand highly efficient products. There's even a growing acceptance of the need for new nuclear power plants. Agreed. Nukes are the way to go. Unfortunately, the morons in the environmental movement are hell bent and determined to derail anything nuclear. We really can't afford to screw up again and treat this oil price cycle as another temporary event because the next cycle will probably put us out of business. Agreed. |
Your President At Work
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? I'm sure they do. But, there are also speculators at work, in the exact same way speculators dick with the price of stocks to the point where their prices are completely disconnected from physical & financial reality. Speculative nonsense: Think back. Although laughable when compared to current values, the price of oil quadrupled during the oil "shortage" crisis in the early 70's on Nixon's watch. Later that decade, under Carter it doubled again in less than 12 months. Neither had anything to do with Wall Street, Dick Cheney or secret "Big Oil" meetings with OPEC. Eisboch That was then. This is now. And (separate issue), in this discussion, I'm not concerned with any particular politician. In the long list of things you buy regularly, can you think of 5 or 6 whose prices are determined by speculators, causing almost daily price swings? I'm in the grocery biz, and I handle about 500 different products. I don't see this happening. How about shoes, or anything else you buy? I am on a conservation kick. I go barefoot. Seriously, at 100 bucks or so a barrel, I don't see daily price swings of a few dollars per barrel as being very significant. There's something more than speculators causing prices to more than double in two years. I admit, I don't fully understand how oil prices are "set" despite JimH's links. Seems to me that those who control the goods determine the price. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 8:13*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:50:23 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Mar 1, 7:41*pm, "Canuck57" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:38sjs3h82ded28g7gqgm79uq7djnd2ag6e@4ax .com... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. *I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. Holy crap, I was just going to bet him and the loser has to answer the drunken dougies questions for a week;) For you and you only. If oil doesn't drop to around - say plus 5/minus4 - $60 by the end of the year, I will give you that boat I told you about a month or so ago. There - right out in public. *:)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Holy crap, bookmarked.....;) |
Your President At Work
On Mar 1, 8:58*pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:orvjs3h8tpiniee7mo6n75kuh5rroe26s5@4ax .com... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:50:23 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Mar 1, 7:41 pm, "Canuck57" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:38sjs3h82ded28g7gqgm79uq7djnd2ag6e@4ax .com... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. Holy crap, I was just going to bet him and the loser has to answer the drunken dougies questions for a week;) For you and you only. If oil doesn't drop to around - say plus 5/minus4 - $60 by the end of the year, I will give you that boat I told you about a month or so ago. There - right out in public. *:) Smile Scott...............you are the new owner of one of Tom's boats. What make, model and length is it?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I ain't sayin' a frekin' word....;) |
Your President At Work
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:25:28 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I don't know about that. There's nothing on the horizon to influence it that way. I'd like to hear your reasoning. It's pretty simple - it's a huge commodity bubble. There is absoutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to support these levels in any sense of the word. It's too much money chasing too little profit - a sort of currency inflation if you will. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am, economic data will provide the catalyst for the crash - sometime around the middle to the end of July. Hmmmmm..... It sounds like you are basically in agreement with Doug. Did hell just freeze over? Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "HK" wrote in message ... "Big Oil" helps set the price of the crude it buys. You think it doesn't have "partners" sitting on the OPEC committees? I'm sure they do. But, there are also speculators at work, in the exact same way speculators dick with the price of stocks to the point where their prices are completely disconnected from physical & financial reality. Speculative nonsense: Think back. Although laughable when compared to current values, the price of oil quadrupled during the oil "shortage" crisis in the early 70's on Nixon's watch. Later that decade, under Carter it doubled again in less than 12 months. Neither had anything to do with Wall Street, Dick Cheney or secret "Big Oil" meetings with OPEC. Eisboch That was then. This is now. And (separate issue), in this discussion, I'm not concerned with any particular politician. In the long list of things you buy regularly, can you think of 5 or 6 whose prices are determined by speculators, causing almost daily price swings? I'm in the grocery biz, and I handle about 500 different products. I don't see this happening. How about shoes, or anything else you buy? I am on a conservation kick. I go barefoot. Seriously, at 100 bucks or so a barrel, I don't see daily price swings of a few dollars per barrel as being very significant. There's something more than speculators causing prices to more than double in two years. I admit, I don't fully understand how oil prices are "set" despite JimH's links. Seems to me that those who control the goods determine the price. Eisboch It's all the factors working together. Demand is part of it, but not all of it. The problem is that people will gamble on absolutely anything. If we added chick pea futures to the other available via the commodities exchanges, people would be gambling on chick peas. |
Your President At Work
"Eisboch" wrote in message
... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:25:28 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I don't know about that. There's nothing on the horizon to influence it that way. I'd like to hear your reasoning. It's pretty simple - it's a huge commodity bubble. There is absoutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to support these levels in any sense of the word. It's too much money chasing too little profit - a sort of currency inflation if you will. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am, economic data will provide the catalyst for the crash - sometime around the middle to the end of July. Hmmmmm..... It sounds like you are basically in agreement with Doug. Did hell just freeze over? Eisboch He's right, and the same kind of bubble is about to burst for ethanol. |
Your President At Work
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 20:25:28 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I don't know about that. There's nothing on the horizon to influence it that way. I'd like to hear your reasoning. It's pretty simple - it's a huge commodity bubble. There is absoutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to support these levels in any sense of the word. It's too much money chasing too little profit - a sort of currency inflation if you will. If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am, economic data will provide the catalyst for the crash - sometime around the middle to the end of July. Hmmmmm..... It sounds like you are basically in agreement with Doug. Did hell just freeze over? Eisboch He's right, and the same kind of bubble is about to burst for ethanol. *That* I certainly agree with. A goofy idea, prematurely adopted, run amuck. Eisboch |
Your President At Work
"HK" wrote in message ... Canuck57 wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:32:58 -0800 (PST), wrote: Everyone says 4 dollars... I will throw my prediction in, I think we will test 5 dollars a gallon before the end of the year. I'll take that bet. I'll say that gas will be back at $2.34/gal by the end of the year. And oil will be down around $60/bl. What do you base that on? Fantasy what? If I knew you, I would gave you 3:1 odds against and an $10,000 wager you are wrong. I'll bet that Dicque Cheney is working right now with his "BIG OIL" buddies to try to knock the price of gas down temporarily two weeks before the November elections. What, to $4 a gallon? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com