 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008OT? Nancy Pelosi On Gas Prices
"Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels." Nancy Pelosi April 24, 2006 "Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a 'commonsense plan' to 'lower gas prices,' " the letter said. "In light of the skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that you reveal this 'commonsense plan' so we can begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this strain." Republicans April 22, 2008 > "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas > prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of > dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big > oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels." > Nancy Pelosi April 24, 2006 Sure. Those dems know their "common sense plan", (death poem), will result in long lines at the gas pump and possible fuel rationing. That is political seppuku. <http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles21/fog0000000384.html> > "Two years ago this week, you stated that House Democrats had a 'commonsense > plan' to 'lower gas prices,' " the letter said. "In light of the > skyrocketing gasoline prices affecting working families and every sector of > our struggling economy, we are writing today to respectfully request that > you reveal this 'commonsense plan' so we can begin work on responsible > solutions to help ease this strain." Republicans April 22, 2008 > "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down > skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > begin work on responsible solutions to help ease this > strain." Republicans April 22, 2008 In other words the republicans have no clue and no plan themselves and no idea what-so-ever of how to get the nation out of the mess they got into in the first place. Nothing new here. Next the neo-cons will be begging for a way out of the war in Iraq Bush lied us into. The republicans sure are a clueless bunch. > > "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down > > skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > way out of the war in Iraq Bush lied us into. The republicans sure are a > clueless bunch. Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling fuel prices? If you stopped buying gas along with the rest of us then perhaps fuel prices would come down. Want to try it? <...> > Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling fuel prices? If > you stopped buying gas along with the rest of us then perhaps fuel > prices would come down. Want to try it? There are positive steps we can take, like conservation, use fuel efficient vehicles, telecomute, use public transportation, use renewable resources, get food locally so we don't have to ship it 10,000 km. There is a limited supply of oil, coal, natural gas, etc. As the demand goes up, so will the prices. Jeff > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff Unfortunately, none of the steps you mentioned include dealing with a broken market for oil. Speculators need to be banned from fiddling with oil prices like drunks at an OTB parlor. Nobody wants to look at just how much of the price volatility is caused by gamblers, but there definitely is SOME effect. It needs to be stopped. >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > price volatility is caused by gamblers, but there definitely is SOME effect. > It needs to be stopped. Fortunately, I didn't. You have yet to show that the number of speculators and the size of their purchases drive up the price of oil or that it needs to be stopped. Please either put up or shut up. Jeff >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Jeff Actually, I don't NEED to do anything. All you need to do is read the newspapers, Jeff. "Oil jumped $2 a barrel today on fears of renewed violence in Baghdad." Please tell me what's wrong with that sentence. Examine each word and phrase. It's obvious. >>>> <...> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Please tell me what's wrong with that sentence. Examine each word and > phrase. It's obvious. 1) Such statements about why the oil prices jumped are stupid, IMHO. The people doing the reports don't why things happened. Can they read minds? The same goes for statements like "The stock market went [up | down] based on sales at [Walmart | Target | Ford]." 2) Please show us that it is speculators who are driving the market, and not people who are actually using the oil, like refiners (Valero, IIRC, refines a lot of oil, but doesn't drill any itself), airlines and bus companies (I bet Grayhound buys fuel with futures, too). 3) Please show us that if the speculators were not around, that the price of oil would be considerably different. The increased demand would still be here, and the same supply would still be available. So basically, you have only been able to demonstrate, well, nothing. Jeff >>>>> <...> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > The same goes for statements like "The stock market went [up | down] based > on sales at [Walmart | Target | Ford]." When the statements are backed up by quotes from traders working for commodity exchanges, I'd say they have some validity. And by the way, the stock market *does* fluctuate for stupid reasons, just like the price of oil. Intel announces bad earnings for the quarter, and 5 other chip makers' stocks also lose value. All markets are driven to some extent by emotion and faulty information. You know that. > 2) Please show us that it is speculators who are driving the market, and > not people who are actually using the oil, like refiners (Valero, IIRC, > refines a lot of oil, but doesn't drill any itself), airlines and bus > companies (I bet Grayhound buys fuel with futures, too). I never claimed it was an all-or-nothing thing, as suggested by your use of "not people who" in the above paragraph. Besides companies involved in the actual biz, there are also speculators who participate for no other reason than to trade. If you or I have the cash, we can play, and if we have enough money, we can make a pretty big splash. That's just plain wrong. For a product as crucial as oil, the market should not be a playground open to anyone with the cash. > 3) Please show us that if the speculators were not around, that the price > of oil would be considerably different. The increased demand would still > be here, and the same supply would still be available. Since speculators *DO* affect the price, it's easy to see that if they were gone, there would be one less factor affecting the price. As far as the word "considerably", used by you, neither of us can make any quantitative claims. All we can say is "some amount". Does it matter? Any effect caused by gamblers should be eliminated. > So basically, you have only been able to demonstrate, well, nothing. > > Jeff Do you have any actual idea of how oil futures are traded, and who trades? >>>>>> <...> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > All we can say is "some amount". Does it matter? Any effect caused by > gamblers should be eliminated. Why? How is this different than when I bought my stock in a bank, a couple of ISPs and ExxonMobil? Why is energy speculation wrong, too? >> So basically, you have only been able to demonstrate, well, nothing. >> >> Jeff > > Do you have any actual idea of how oil futures are traded, and who trades? Yes. But nothing you have said convinces me that speculation is bad or wrong or even significant. You're acting like a person on a mission, but nothing to back up the mission. Jeff >>>>>>> <...> >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Why? How is this different than when I bought my stock in a bank, a couple > of ISPs and ExxonMobil? It's different because if you alone drive up the price of a stock, it only affects others who wish they could've bought it before you drove up the price. (Let's leave sellers out of this for the moment, for simplicity's sake). It doesn't affect anyone who has no interest in that stock. But, if you bid up the price of oil, you're affecting millions of people who have NO CHOICE but to keep buying it. With stocks, there's no such thing as "I have no choice but to buy that stock, and the price is wrecking my budget." And don't tell me we have a choice at this point in time. Look what the price of oil is doing to so many other basic commodities like food. > Why is energy speculation wrong, too? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff Two questions for you: 1) Why is it so important for you to believe that it's OK for "non-connected investors" to have fun in the oil markets? 2) Why do you think "non-connected investors" should be allowed to affect a product whose price has huge ripple effects throughout the economy? http://www.thetimes.co.za/Business/Article.aspx?id=672709 ONE MAN SENT OIL OVER $100 "Geopolitical tensions and new buying interest from speculative investors like investment funds are also behind the quadrupling in the oil price over the last five years, analysts say." >> Yes. But nothing you have said convinces me that speculation is bad or >> wrong or even significant. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1) Why is it so important for you to believe that it's OK for "non-connected > investors" to have fun in the oil markets? I'll butt in here. The entire stock market is this way. We're ALL "non-connected" investors speculating on what, when, why, and how we can make money with stocks, ETFs or M-Funds. > 2) Why do you think "non-connected investors" should be allowed to affect a > product whose price has huge ripple effects throughout the economy? Then close the market to oil. See what THAT does to the price. >>> Yes. But nothing you have said convinces me that speculation is bad or >>> wrong or even significant. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "non-connected" investors speculating on what, when, why, and how we can > make money with stocks, ETFs or M-Funds. If you (and I mean specifically YOU) happen to have a ton of money, and you do a stock trade which raises enough interest to crank up the price 20% in a day, it only affects others who might've wanted to buy that stock cheaper. But, nobody HAS to buy that stock in order to get to work every day. Nobody puts that stock in the tank of their vehicle. You can't compare stocks to oil. We **MUST** buy fuel. If you have no option but your car to get to work, or do your work, you MUST buy fuel. So, non-connected speculators affect everyone with their recreational trades. >> 2) Why do you think "non-connected investors" should be allowed to affect >> a >> product whose price has huge ripple effects throughout the economy? > > Then close the market to oil. See what THAT does to the price. No need to close the market. Let actual industry players continue their trading activities. Eliminate gamblers who are just in it for the thrills. I don't know (yet) what percentage of trades are done by gamblers, but as far as I'm concerned, there should be none. >>> 1) Why is it so important for you to believe that it's OK for >>> "non-connected [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but your car to get to work, or do your work, you MUST buy fuel. So, > non-connected speculators affect everyone with their recreational trades. I understand your reasoning here, but I was only addressing your "non-connected" parameters. Oil isn't the only thing subject to these emotional whims. That's all. >> The close the market to oil. See what THAT does to the price. > > No need to close the market. Let actual industry players continue their > trading activities. Eliminate gamblers who are just in it for the thrills. I > don't know (yet) what percentage of trades are done by gamblers, but as far > as I'm concerned, there should be none. From your mouth to God's ears. But it ain't gonna happen. >>>> 1) Why is it so important for you to believe that it's OK for >>>> "non-connected [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That's all. When's the last time you saw pork chops go from $3.00 a pound to $12.00 a pound? >> I understand your reasoning here, but I was only addressing your >> "non-connected" parameters. Oil isn't the only thing subject to these [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When's the last time you saw pork chops go from $3.00 a pound to $12.00 a > pound? Okay, now we're discussing DEGREE of emotion. But you knew that. >>> I understand your reasoning here, but I was only addressing your >>> "non-connected" parameters. Oil isn't the only thing subject to these [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > But you knew that. No, I'm talking about a price change for pork chops that's not much different than what's happened to oil. The commodity market includes pork bellies and a long list of other stuff, most of which we do not NEED to buy in order to get to work every day. If amateurs want to play OTB with extra cash, ban them from oil. There are plenty of other games to play. http://fabsites.com/FabFutures.html >>>> I understand your reasoning here, but I was only addressing your >>>> "non-connected" parameters. Oil isn't the only thing subject to these [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://fabsites.com/FabFutures.html You can keep beating this horse, Joe. But the fact remains that all stocks are subject to speculative and emotional price swings. That is ALL I'm saying. I've never disagreed with you that oil is far more influential in someone's life than pork chops. >>>>> I understand your reasoning here, but I was only addressing your >>>>> "non-connected" parameters. Oil isn't the only thing subject to these [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That is ALL I'm saying. I've never disagreed with you that oil is far > more influential in someone's life than pork chops. Obviously, stocks are subject to price changes for non-logical reasons. But, investing in oil stocks DOES NOT AFFECT THE PRICE OF WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR TANK. Investing in oil futures DOES affect the price. Amateurs don't belong in the futures market. I spent a few years in the investment industry and I can tell you that the vast majority of investors make absolutely hideous decisions. Let them do it with stocks, not with my gasoline. > Obviously, stocks are subject to price changes for non-logical reasons. But, > investing in oil stocks DOES NOT AFFECT THE PRICE OF WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > vast majority of investors make absolutely hideous decisions. Let them do it > with stocks, not with my gasoline. Agreed. >> Obviously, stocks are subject to price changes for non-logical reasons. >> But, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Agreed. It's about time. By now, you should know that I never lie and I'm always right. >>> Obviously, stocks are subject to price changes for non-logical reasons. >>> But, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's about time. By now, you should know that I never lie and I'm always > right. EXCEPT for that one time you thought you were wrong. >>>> Obviously, stocks are subject to price changes for non-logical reasons. >>>> But, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > EXCEPT for that one time you thought you were wrong. I was kidding. > >>>>> <...> > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Do you have any actual idea of how oil futures are traded, and who trades? The FACT is that they are traded and on a world market that we have NO direct control over. We can either work within the world system or we can take our money and go home without any oil. As the new supplies of oil reserves diminish and the world demand increases the choices become fewer and fewer while the prices go higher. Those are the realities that we face. We can whine about it or we can open up our domestic sources to development while finding ways to conserve. Conservation by the way does NOT begin with the government, it begins with that person you see in the mirror every morning. >> >>>>> <...> >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > Conservation by the way does NOT begin with the government, it begins > with that person you see in the mirror every morning. Supply and demand are not the only part of the price equation. I have a question for you: No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who makes money? Hint: It's not just the oil companies. Who, then? > >> >>>>> <...> > >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > Who, then? The brookers will always make money rather trading up or trading down. So what? That is their business and that is the way the system is run and again, our direct control is very limited. Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price equation and I didn't imply that they were but the DEMAND part of it is the only part that we have any direct control over. >> >> >>>>> <...> >> >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > down. So what? That is their business and that is the way the system > is run and again, our direct control is very limited. You win a cigar. You have also explained why it would be difficult to eliminate recreational investors from the oil commodities game. Guess which industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential candidates, and many congressmen, too? > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price equation > and I didn't imply that they were but the DEMAND part of it is the > only part that we have any direct control over. Not much control at all. Every percentage helps, but if you think a hybrid in every driveway would lower the price of oil, you're crazy. And, the price of oil is totally out of proportion to increased demand in places like China. Demand has not quadrupled over the past five years. > >> >> >>>>> <...> > >> >> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential candidates, > and many congressmen, too? Now you can light that cigar for me by naming one industry that DOESN'T contribute huge sums of money to the presidential candidates and congressmen. (I haven't smoked in over 30 years and I would bet that I won't be starting again soon.) > > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price equation > > and I didn't imply that they were but the DEMAND part of it is the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of oil is totally out of proportion to increased demand in places like > China. Demand has not quadrupled over the past five years. Oh but it would greatly lower the price of using oil to have a hybrid in every driveway. The fact of the matter is that as a percentage of income, gas is the same or only slightly higher than it was 40 years ago. For me, it actually remains somewhat less than it was in the late 60's. The price of gas at $3.50 per gallon is 10x the $.35 it was then but my income is more than 15x more. In addition, my car now gets over 25 miles to the gallon compared to about 12mpg back then. I hate the high prices just like everyone else but when I put them in perspective, they aren't that bad. >> >> No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who makes >> >> money? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and congressmen. (I haven't smoked in over 30 years and I would bet > that I won't be starting again soon.) Your question about other contributors is irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is that we would face huge resistance if we tried to regulate what is basically a cash cow for the financial services industry. They're getting paid easy money for the use of their computers by recreational investors. >> > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price equation >> > and I didn't imply that they were but the DEMAND part of it is the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > hate the high prices just like everyone else but when I put them in > perspective, they aren't that bad. I suppose you believe that the ripple effect of high oil prices is an illusion created by faulty journalism. In other words, even though the price of anything shipped by truck has risen, it really hasn't. $2.49 is not a higher number than $1.89. Right? > >> >> No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who makes > >> >> money? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > getting paid easy money for the use of their computers by recreational > investors. No more irrelevant than your bringing it into the discussion. > >> > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price equation > >> > and I didn't imply that they were but the DEMAND part of it is the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Right? Wrong. The ripple effect of high oil prices is very real and should be of concern to us all. It has nothing to do with the faulty journalism that we must also deal with but that is another irrelevent discussion. >> >> >> No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who >> >> >> makes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > No more irrelevant than your bringing it into the discussion. So, corporations don't influence politicians who may be considering regulating those corporations? >> >> > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price >> >> > equation [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > journalism that we must also deal with but that is another irrelevent > discussion. Are you saying that all news reports about oil prices are faulty? For instance, below is a bit of a news story. Is it inaccurate? If so, why? "Crude futures have since retreated as OPEC boosted supplies and several forecasters cut demand predictions. But in recent weeks, prices have held generally to a range between $87 and $95, leading some analysts to conclude some investors may be poised to make another push for $100 a barrel in the new year. But there is little consensus on that theory. Other analysts maintain that oil's fall rally was driven more by speculative buying than the underlying fundamentals of supply and demand. Analysts in this school of thought believe oil's true value is closer to $50 or $60 a barrel." > >> >> >> No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who > >> >> >> makes [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > So, corporations don't influence politicians who may be considering > regulating those corporations? Sure would like to know what you are reading that makes you come up with such off the wall remarks and questions. Never said that or implied it in any way. > >> >> > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price > >> >> > equation [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Are you saying that all news reports about oil prices are faulty? I would say that almost all news reports have some degree of inaccuracy in them, some more so than others. > For instance, below is a bit of a news story. Is it inaccurate? If so, why? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fundamentals of supply and demand. Analysts in this school of thought > believe oil's true value is closer to $50 or $60 a barrel." Got to love any news story that says maybe it is and maybe it isn't but then again it might or it might not depending on rather it does or doesn't. That news story must have been written by a politician. >> >> >> >> No matter which way prices move in the commodities markets, who >> >> >> >> makes [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > with such off the wall remarks and questions. Never said that or > implied it in any way. Great! You've just changed your mind and said it's NOT irrelevant. But, I thought you could think this through without help. Apparently not. So, here's the connection: If the government decided to ban recreational investors from the commodities markets, the financial services industry would call in its lobbyists and the whole idea would die a quiet death, just like so many other pieces of legislation which vanish under pressure. So, the fact that corporations enrich politicians is VERY relevant to this issue. >> >> >> > Supply and demand have never been the ONLY part of the price >> >> >> > equation [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > but then again it might or it might not depending on rather it does or > doesn't. That news story must have been written by a politician. The report accurately described the thoughts and hunches of the very people whose activities affect oil prices. There's nothing wrong with accurately reporting that people aren't sure about something. The "experts" who create the emotions and fears about oil prices are the exact same kinds of analysts who are wrong about common stocks about 50% of the time. Human beings, functioning on fear and guesswork, using your wallet as a toy. No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is against the law. LOL Guess which > industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential > candidates, and many congressmen, too? > No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is against > the law. LOL For every rule (law) this always and exception (way around it). > Guess which > > industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential > > candidates, and many congressmen, too? Ya right. What color is the sky in YOUR world? Nobody watches the publicly owned US corporations, not even the stock holders LOL >> No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is >> against [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential >> > candidates, and many congressmen, too? What do you mean by "nobody watches"??? What color is your cocktail? Again: What do you mean by "nobody watches"? > Ya right. What color is the sky in YOUR world? Nobody watches the > publicly owned US corporations, not even the stock holders LOL [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> > industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential >>> > candidates, and many congressmen, too? > Ya right. What color is the sky in YOUR world? Nobody watches the > publicly owned US corporations, not even the stock holders LOL Mike, while it may be illegal for a corporation to contribute to a political party or candidate, its board members and officers may contribute. And they can contribute to PACs, as well, which contribute to campaigns. And when a company's PAC and officers/employees make contributions, the people who are voted into office know who helped them. Jeff >>> No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is >>> against [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential >>>> candidates, and many congressmen, too? > > Ya right. What color is the sky in YOUR world? Nobody watches the > > publicly owned US corporations, not even the stock holders LOL [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >>>> industry contributes huge sums of money to all the presidential > >>>> candidates, and many congressmen, too? BINGO! > No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is against > the law. LOL Then who pays for all those lobbyists and the money they hand out to politicians? >> No corporation contributs to politicians or their campaigns, it is >> against >> the law. LOL > > Then who pays for all those lobbyists and the money they hand out to > politicians? Here's how the conventions are funded. What an exquisite game of smoke & mirrors. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89949634 > Not much control at all. Every percentage helps, but if you think a hybrid > in every driveway would lower the price of oil, you're crazy. And, the price > of oil is totally out of proportion to increased demand in places like > China. Demand has not quadrupled over the past five years. If all passenger cars were replaced by a Prius or similar vehicle, we'd not make a 2 percent dent. >>Not much control at all. Every percentage helps, but if you think a hybrid >>in every driveway would lower the price of oil, you're crazy. And, the price [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If all passenger cars were replaced by a Prius or similar vehicle, we'd >not make a 2 percent dent. I'd say that's pessimistic, as a Prius tends to get double the real- life mileage of most cars. The Consumer Reports ratings of 35 city and 50 highway seem realistic. >>> Not much control at all. Every percentage helps, but if you think a hybrid >>> in every driveway would lower the price of oil, you're crazy. And, the price [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > life mileage of most cars. The Consumer Reports ratings of 35 city > and 50 highway seem realistic. Not my numbers. I wish I still had that link, but the whole extrapolation seemed reasonable. > Supply and demand are not the only part of the price equation. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who, then? Me, for one. Didn't you ever own a fund composed of 9-13 percent oil companies or related industries? >> Supply and demand are not the only part of the price equation. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Me, for one. Didn't you ever own a fund composed of 9-13 percent oil > companies or related industries? Depends on how the fund is structured. My biggest fund owns oil related stocks. But, the fund doesn't gamble in the NY Mercantile Exchange. Big difference. >>> Supply and demand are not the only part of the price equation. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stocks. But, the fund doesn't gamble in the NY Mercantile Exchange. Big > difference. In how it does business. But that doesn't change the fact that you'll profit from the whole picture. >>>> Supply and demand are not the only part of the price equation. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > In how it does business. But that doesn't change the fact that you'll > profit from the whole picture. Not relevant to the discussion we're having. >>> Depends on how the fund is structured. My biggest fund owns oil related >>> stocks. But, the fund doesn't gamble in the NY Mercantile Exchange. Big [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not relevant to the discussion we're having. Really? I thought we were discussing people profiting from stocks. >>>> Depends on how the fund is structured. My biggest fund owns oil related >>>> stocks. But, the fund doesn't gamble in the NY Mercantile Exchange. Big [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Really? I thought we were discussing people profiting from stocks. Do you understand the difference between these two investment products? 1) common stocks 2) commodity contracts >>>>> Depends on how the fund is structured. My biggest fund owns oil related >>>>> stocks. But, the fund doesn't gamble in the NY Mercantile Exchange. Big [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 2) commodity contracts Sure. See my other post. > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff We are foolish not expanding nuclear power.  Signature"It depends on how you define alone" Bill Clinton >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > We are foolish not expanding nuclear power. I totally agree. If we expand it enough, we can use the energy to not only displace oil-fired power plants, but also oil fired cars, using hydrogen or batteries. Jeff >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jeff Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by oil-fired plants? > Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by > oil-fired plants? Currently the breakdown for the U.S. is as follows: 50 percent from coal, 20 percent from nukes, the remaining 30 percent other sources including oil. I do not have the figures breaking down that 30 percent. >> Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by >> oil-fired plants? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other sources including oil. I do not have the figures breaking down > that 30 percent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation >>> Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by >>> oil-fired plants? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation Interesting. I knew the French used nukes waaaay more than us, but what's strange is that they edge us in petro-watts. > >>> <...> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by > oil-fired plants? As of 2005: 49.7% came from coal-fired power plants, 19.3% was produced by nuclear, 18.7% from natural gas, 6.5% from hydroelectric, and other minor contributions from other sources. He may have meant "Fossil fuel power plant", which includes Coal (but can also include fuel oil, natural gas or oil shale). I think his main point is Nuclear is a much cleaner option (less pollution). Plus, if we are ever to have significant use of hydrogen for automotive power, we will need more nuclear capability. It takes tremendous energy to produce hydrogen en-mass. Producing hydrogen with coal or natural gas power (as over two-thirds of the energy currently is) does not reduce pollution, it just relocates the source from the vehicles to the power plant. At the moment, hydrogen is not viable, but its source is basically limitless. Hydrogen cars will probably be more viable than electric cars, as they do not require down-time to recharge/refuel. They must first be made cheaper, safer and more versatile. Electric cars are superior in some ways, cleaner (if your not recharging it using coal-fired produced electricity), fewer moving parts and, if you buy the very expensive electric moters, more torque. But the multi-hour refueling time and short range means they are not viable. Mass usage of electric cars will also require expanding our nuclear capabilites, as producing electricty for the cars with coal or natural gas plants still pollutes as much as if the cars had Internal combustion engines. Yol Bolsun, Grendel. "Have all the opinions you want. They're free. Just don't confuse them with reality."-Solomon Short. On Apr 24, 8:53 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by > oil-fired plants? As of 2005: 49.7% came from coal-fired power plants, 19.3% was produced by nuclear, 18.7% from natural gas, 6.5% from hydroelectric, and other minor contributions from other sources. He may have meant "Fossil fuel power plant", which includes Coal (but can also include fuel oil, natural gas or oil shale). I think his main point is Nuclear is a much cleaner option (less pollution). ============= I agree that nuclear is cleaner. I was taking issue with the idea that increased nuclear production would have a huge effect on oil used for electric production. We don't seem to use much oil for that. > > If we expand it enough, we can use the energy to not only displace > > oil-fired power plants, but also oil fired cars, using hydrogen or > > batteries. > Every percent helps, but how much of our electricity is produced by > oil-fired plants? Economist.com: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2271/2440453212_c887f57cf2_o.gif Oops. It lumps coal and oil together. :( > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jeff BS: As demand adjust, suppliers adjust supply to keep prices high. >> <...> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > BS: As demand adjust, suppliers adjust supply to keep prices high. That, IMHO, is a really stupid comment. By conserving energy, a company gets a competitive edge against other companies. And if a whole country conserves energy, that becomes a competitive advantage for the whole country. Jeff >>> <...> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jeff Prices continue to rise whether we use more gas or not so even if we use less, we are still paying a higher price. How does that give us a competitive advantage; especially when the US gets most of its oil from foreign sources? >>>> <...> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Prices continue to rise whether we use more gas or not so even if we use > less, we are still paying a higher price. Prices go up, but the cost depends on the quantity purchased, as well. > How does that give us a competitive advantage; especially when the US gets > most of its oil from foreign sources? If you have to make a delivery and your van gets 12 mpg and your competitor's van gets 15 mpg, guess who can either deliver the package for less or make more profit on the delivery. FedEx and UPS both know this. So does DHL. Likewise, the steel company that has more energy-efficient equipment for making steel will be able to make steel for less money. And some other countries get most or all their oil from foreign sources, too, like Japan. And they seem to be able to compete against the US pretty well on some things, like cars. Jeff >By conserving energy, a company gets a competitive edge against other >companies. And if a whole country conserves energy, that becomes a >competitive advantage for the whole country. That's what we keep telling our customers, along with how bad China is. >> By conserving energy, a company gets a competitive edge against other >> companies. And if a whole country conserves energy, that becomes a >> competitive advantage for the whole country. >> > That's what we keep telling our customers, along with how bad China > is. Who cars what one tells his customers? One can tell them that the swiss cheese one uses is from the moon. All the costumers care about is the quality of the products and the price. Your straw-man argument is not working. Jeff >>By conserving energy, a company gets a competitive edge against other >>companies. And if a whole country conserves energy, that becomes a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Who cars what one tells his customers? We car, and we have convinced many of them to maintain production in the U.S. or another free country rather than move to China. >One can tell them that the swiss cheese one uses is from the >moon. All the costumers care about is the quality of the products and the price. Few customers care about quality; it's almost always about price exclusively. >Your straw-man argument is not working. Whatever. >>> By conserving energy, a company gets a competitive edge against other >>> companies. And if a whole country conserves energy, that becomes a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Few customers care about quality; it's almost always about price > exclusively. I know. That's why people buy cheaper GMs, Fords and Chrysler rather than more expensive Toyotas and Honda. In addition, that's why Yugos are one of the best selling cars in the US today. Companies that use less energy are able to make a quality product for less money. Jeff >> Your straw-man argument is not working. >> > Whatever. On Apr 26, 5:03 am, "rantonr...@mail.com" <rantonr...@mail.com> wrote: > > rantonr...@mail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Few customers care about quality; it's almost always about price > exclusively. They may not seem to care about quality but most customers are aware of the effect on the ultimate price of poor quality. > >Your straw-man argument is not working. > > Whatever. > > <...> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > BS: As demand adjust, suppliers adjust supply to keep prices high. You are both right. > In article > <Lr_Pj.3150$lU5.1240@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net>, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > rest of us then perhaps fuel prices would come down. > Want to try it? Where does it say anything about any "magic bullet"? It will take many years to undo what the right has done to the Nation. It's always the same from the right demanding the left to do something to fix what the right has broken. >> Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling fuel prices? >> If you stopped buying gas along with the rest of us then perhaps fuel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > same from the right demanding the left to do something to fix what the > right has broken. This started back in the 90's. Now tell me, what did the Clintoons accomplish? >>> Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling >>> fuel prices? If you stopped buying gas along with the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This started back in the 90's. Now tell me, what did the > Clintoons accomplish? Wahahaha.........No it started back in the '80s. What did Reagan do? Wahahahaha.......... When confronted with the reality that Bush indeed is to blame the right always blames Clinton. Translation=You lose. >>>> Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling >>>> fuel prices? If you stopped buying gas along with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Wahahaha.........No it started back in the '80s. What did Reagan do? > Wahahahaha.......... Not at all. The Clintons gave this country away. Prior to that America was doing pretty well, holding it's own against the other manufacturing countries in the world. The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to India. Stop kissing their a.ses. They did more wrong for this country than even Bush. > When confronted with the reality that Bush indeed is to blame the right > always blames Clinton. > > Translation=You lose. >>>>> Why do you think there's a magic bullet for controlling >>>>> fuel prices? If you stopped buying gas along with the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the country, > and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to India. The rise of the Internet did that. Before the internet was here, having a call center in India was impossible. In addition, India had to build the infrastructure so that this could happen. In addition to call centers, IBM, Microsoft and other companies have major engineering centers in India, where new software is being developed. The same thing is true of Ireland. And the economy is a global economy. This is all part of it. Jeff > Stop kissing their a.ses. They did more wrong for this country than even > Bush. >> When confronted with the reality that Bush indeed is to blame the right >> always blames Clinton. >> >> Translation=You lose. <...> > The rise of the Internet did that. Before the internet was here, having > a call center in India was impossible. In addition, India had to build [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jeff Engineering jobs and call centers aren't they only ones being outsourced. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/business/worldbusiness/24debt.html >> Not at all. The Clintons gave this country away. Prior to that America was >> doing pretty well, holding it's own against the other manufacturing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff Yup. Why pay $60,000 when you can get it for $17,000 >>And the economy is a global economy. This is all part of it. > >Yup. Why pay $60,000 when you can get it for $17,000 It's highly unlikely the $17K worker will be anywhere as productive as the $60K one because he won't be backed with nearly as much capital as his higher priced counterpart. >>>And the economy is a global economy. This is all part of it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the $60K one because he won't be backed with nearly as much capital as > his higher priced counterpart. I'm a Dell FSE, but I atually work through Unisys. I call Bangalore to open and close calls and for Tech Support. They work for Unisys, too. >>> And the economy is a global economy. This is all part of it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the $60K one because he won't be backed with nearly as much capital as > his higher priced counterpart. The husband of a client of mine is a software engineer whose company has outsourced work to India. Obviously their hourly wage structure is a bargain. From what he says it looks good on paper, but the reality is that it takes five of them to do the work of one here. >>>>And the economy is a global economy. This is all part of it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >it looks good on paper, but the reality is that it takes five of them >to do the work of one here. Their error rate is also about 10x as high, which isn't reassuring when the software is designed to control a pacemaker or radiation therapy machine. > The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the country, > and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to India. Remind me. Who signed NAFTA? >> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the country, >> and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to India. > > Remind me. Who signed NAFTA? Hmmm...India is in North America? I guess I hafta take one of those revisionist Geography classes... >>> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the country, >>> and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to India. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I guess I hafta take one of those revisionist Geography classes... You missed the point. India is just another version. >>>> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the >>>> country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You missed the point. India is just another version. But it was the Clintons that facilitated off-shoring to India... >>>>> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the >>>>> country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But it was the Clintons that facilitated off-shoring to India... As well as him signing NAFTA. Do try to keep up. <g> >>>>>> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out of the >>>>>> country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT call centers to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Do try to keep up. <g> OK, something I'm missing here. Clinton signed NAFTA? I thought Hillary said he didn't. Oh, wait, she just said she can't recall... This is what throws me off concerning NAFTA. I was in the Toronto area on a 'working vacation' when Bush I signed a fre trade agreement with Canada. My BIL thought this was good news because he was working for a company producing auto parts for the Canadian factories (all of them, including Ford, GM and VW). I said, You're in trouble. The company he was working for had a larger plant south of Detroit, and I told him what this means is all the manufacturing can be done on the US side and then sent to Canada. Canada had a law that cars made in Canada had to have 76% Canadian made parts. Prior to that, if a car had less than 50% Canadian parts, there was a 33% tariff on the price (an "import duty") even if the car was made in Canada. What the fir trade agreement did was make it so parts could move across the border with impunity. This is exactly what happened, and the next time I went there, he was still working because he was in HazMat, and they were cleaning up in order to shut the place down. They went from 200 employees, to 15 employees, to "This building available". His wife was also working in a similar situation, and she also lost her job. It wasn't NAFTA, but it was close enough to kill Canada. >>> But it was the Clintons that facilitated off-shoring to India... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > OK, something I'm missing here. Clinton signed NAFTA? I thought Hillary > said he didn't. Oh, wait, she just said she can't recall... She does have a "creative" memory. Clinton practically drove the whole process himself starting in 1993 before signing in 1994. > This is what throws me off concerning NAFTA. I was in the Toronto area on > a 'working vacation' when Bush I signed a fre trade agreement with Canada. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It wasn't NAFTA, but it was close enough to kill Canada. We've had similar stories here in Kalifornia. Greedy Dems wanting more taxes from purchases by the "wealthy" (read that anyone over $50K per year), drove large ticket corporations out of state. Even smaller ticket items (Buck Knives) packed up for better treatment elsewhere. I guess the politicians here really showed them who's boss, eh? Never mind that the results were a net loss of tax revenue. >>>> But it was the Clintons that facilitated off-shoring to India... >>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I guess the politicians here really showed them who's boss, eh? Never > mind that the results were a net loss of tax revenue. LOL! Everytime somebody wants to show someone else "Who's The Boss", they'd be better served just shooting themselves in the foot and leave it alone. Same result, but the rest of us are better off. >>>>> Why do you think there's a magic bullet for >>>>> controlling fuel prices? If you stopped buying gas [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > that America was doing pretty well, holding it's own > against the other manufacturing countries in the world. Not at all loon. Reagan gave everything away with "Voodoo economics". Remember "supply side economics"? The over building and over manufacturing that led to another republican recession and jobs shipped over seas. Reagan invented what you call "greasing the skids". You seem to have a slippery memory or maybe you weren't even around while Ronny RayGun stuck it to the workers of America. Now we are learning that this administration provided not only weapons to Iran and Iraq but secrets to China, Israel and who knows who else so far not to mention drugs supplied by Ollie North. > The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out > of the country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT > call centers to India. > > Stop kissing their a.ses. They did more wrong for this > country than even Bush. You appear to be the lame clueless a.s kisser that supports the worse leader the nation has ever known. How many troops did Clinton get killed in a war started over lies and deceptions? >> When confronted with the reality that Bush indeed is to >> blame the right always blames Clinton. >> >> Translation=You lose. >> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out >> of the country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > leader the nation has ever known. How many troops did Clinton get killed in > a war started over lies and deceptions? When did I EVER say I supported Bush? My mantra is ONE MORE YEAR! ONE MORE YEAR! (Less, now...) But you seem to be drinking whatever kool-aid is handed to you without question. As far as lies and deception, all I care is Saddam is gone. Time to get out. >>> The Clintons greased the skids to let manufacturing out >>> of the country, and certainly facilitated the move of IT [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > As far as lies and deception, all I care is Saddam is > gone. Time to get out. Why do you care that Saddam is gone if it is not YOU that is drinking the Kool-Aid. Things are worse now than when he was in power. You seem to enjoy the taste of the sh.t you willingly swallow. The war was wrong in every respect without exception. >> When did I EVER say I supported Bush? My mantra is ONE MORE YEAR! ONE >> MORE YEAR! (Less, now...) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > enjoy the taste of the sh.t you willingly swallow. The war was wrong in > every respect without exception. Because Saddam was an a.shole? >>Why do you care that Saddam is gone if it is not YOU that is drinking the >>Kool-Aid. Things are worse now than when he was in power. You seem to >>enjoy the taste of the sh.t you willingly swallow. The war was wrong in >>every respect without exception. > >Because Saddam was an a.shole? So why didn't we go to war against George Bush or any of the hundred other national leaders with the same personality characteristic? >>>Why do you care that Saddam is gone if it is not YOU that is drinking the >>>Kool-Aid. Things are worse now than when he was in power. You seem to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So why didn't we go to war against George Bush or any of the hundred > other national leaders with the same personality characteristic? Treason is an excellent deterrent... Just think...only 8 more to go... >>> When did I EVER say I supported Bush? My mantra is ONE >>> MORE YEAR! ONE MORE YEAR! (Less, now...) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Because Saddam was an a.shole? Bush is also an a.shole for starting something that someone else has to finish if that is even possible. Surely if the people of Iraq had known what the war would bring they would have elected to keep things the way they were. The neo-con-artists owe the nation of Iraq a huge apology along with the troops that died for the lies of the present disgraceful administration. http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/04/24/20080424_generals28.mp3 >>>> When did I EVER say I supported Bush? My mantra is ONE >>>> MORE YEAR! ONE MORE YEAR! (Less, now...) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/04/24/20080424_generals28.mp3 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?ex=1224561600&en=67 12bd9f98a7f8bf&ei=5087?excamp=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0423-L1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=% 20NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0423-L1 >>>>> When did I EVER say I supported Bush? My mantra is ONE MORE YEAR! >>>>> ONE MORE YEAR! (Less, now...) [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?ex=1224561600&en=67 12bd9f98a7f8bf&ei=5087?excamp=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0423- L1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=%20NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-0423-L1 In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure. Amazing how it doesn't say anything about Kennedy's trip there. In the summer of 2005, Kennedy was running his mouth almost every day about the atrocities at Guantanamo, along with Harry Reid and a few other witless Democrats. Kennedy arranged a weekend trip there and went with three other Democrat mouthpieces. Amazing, but Monday after returning from the trip, not another word was uttered by any of the Three Stooges that made the trip there. Kennedy even skated right over it in his blog. What a bunch of losers. > > Not at all. The Clintons gave this country away. Prior to > > that America was doing pretty well, holding it's own > > against the other manufacturing countries in the world. > > Not at all loon. Reagan gave everything away with "Voodoo economics". > Remember "supply side economics"? Not at al like regular economics, where deficits matter. Supply side economics allow unlimited tax cuts without requiring matching spending cuts because it magically turns deficits into surpluses. People forget that Ronald Reagan had advocated such nonsense since the late 1970s, and when voodoo economics didn't pan out -- as every conventional economist had predicted would happen -- he and the Republicans blamed the deficits on overspending by Congress. But at least Reagan had the sense to eventually raise taxes, resulting in his original 30% tax cut becoming a 25% cut -- the same as what Jimmy Carter had originally proposed. Overall, Reagan raised taxes as much as Clinton did (Investors Business Daily -- 7%/year, versus 4%/year for The Real President Bush). Reagan's industrial policy relied too much on financial gimmicks, probably because his economics team just wasn't that familiar with manufacturing. Remem |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message