Doesn't mean it actually happens. Most of the oil speculators would rather have a tanker sit idle for months than sell at a loss.
This is a gamble, if anything the more speculators that do this the better. If it works as often as you say that is only because the true value of oil is actually higher than what we pay now. It is slowing world consumption of oil which is a good thing, imo.
That said, this is all bs if the speculators get bailed out when they bet wrong.
Where does this idea come from that speculators always profit? Speculators do not care whether the price goes up or down. If they think the price will go down they will try to get out first, or take out a contract saying they need to repay a certain amount of oil at a later date.
We can stop subsidizing the production of oil and allow energy to find its natural price (I think likely higher than now). Elsewhere the idea came up to raise the fees for excavation rights, I think this would also be better. I won't pretend to know if this could be at all politically feasible, but the current system is just unsustainable.
Just go plot gold/usd vs time and gas price/USD vs time. Go ahead and also plot M2, the national debt, healthcare spending... any of these things over time. Between any two of these, R will be >.5. The common cause is that there is more money. The fed prints money, the banks and government get it, and they use a portion to buy gold and oil. Then the rest is used to create credit, thus raising the prices of everything else. Once people won't take it anymore, wages and salaries of the common man rise to compensate.
This turned out to be the right answer. Look at the charts of gas prices since the 70s and gold prices. They match up almost exactly. The price has everything to do with the fed printing money.
Arrhenius is supporting evidence. The water vapor feedback is the important player, without that CO2 absorption spectrum would be pretty irrelevant to climate. There just isn't enough CO2. It is all about feedbacks. His prediction was right, but the mechanism wrong (or at least incomplete).
I don't really care about the consensus aspect since I need to cede to the professionals anyway. But I did read one of the "showing consensus" papers and it was kind of dumb. They even admitted in the methods that it meant nothing and could just as well be due to selection bias.
The evidence the earth has warmed is pretty undeniable, but only became so after the "sceptics" forced the sensor's to be examined with their own crappy experiment of picking and choosing a couple dozen sensors next to grills and whatnot. The correlation between CO2 emmissions and temp rise is very strong and the most plausible cause for the temp rise is CO2 (there is plenty of theoretical basis for this mechanism). But...
Here is my main thing: 1) How can you be so sure you can predict the future with so few data points and so many overlapping cycles? 2) Why does the media portray it as if runaway global warming is about to occur? 3) Why are people so confident that the increased moisture -> increased high altitude clouds -> increased albedo scenario will not occur?
Sorry if these are dumb questions, I was looking into it awhile back but then got to the point where I was too busy with work to dig any deeper.
Yes, this. The president does not control this, nor should he try to. Artificially lowering oil prices now will only lead to a huge jump later on which will be even more disruptive.
That's because the US government has been corrupted by corporations, it has nothing to do with socialism or free markets other than socialist policies provide a centralized point of power for corporations to target and get favors from. Also what is the price of gas in Norway?
Wow looking through your posts they are idiotic. It has been explained many times in this thread that while consumption in the US is down, it has risen globally... This is why prices still went up.
It would not be good for the US in the short term, but in the long term the US would control the remaining oil reserves (I think this is an unspoken policy already). You say you'd like a fuel efficient vehicle that is not available in the US due to lack of demand. You attribute this lack of demand to low oil prices (relative to europe). My understanding of european countries is they artificially increase gas prices by taxing it much more. Where does this tax money go?
I don't think any extra action needs to be taken to raise gas prices in the US... just stop subsidizing the industry.
Basically I just think having all these taxes aimed at manipulating demand is ripe for corruption. One industry ends up favored over the other, the more political power a company/industry has the easier it is for them to gain an advantage, etc.
The sad thing is you're gunna be the one left holding the bag and all the people who saw what was going on are going to have to bail you out. Go look at the google trends for housing bubble... it was not unexpected at all. Then once it happened everyone was like: "oh no one saw this coming", bullshit. The only people who didn't see it are those who blindly believe everything they're told. The only solution is to get people to educate themselves.
Anyway, reptilians are more plausible than any of the major deities.
The cost of storage is built into the price speculators pay... why do you think it isn't? If you would just think instead of ranting, you would realize that the model of what is going on you are using makes no sense.
So, you have no specific examples to point to. The various Fed chairmen have actually said they are pumping bubbles. It is their policy to pump one bubble after the other until it pops. It is the only way to keep the system going.
Glass-steagal was only necessary because banks and other industries were provided way too much credit to play with in 20's. Central planning caused the problem to begin with.
How do they add to the cost? Think about it this way: Why would speculator #1 sell to speculator #2 if speculator #1 thought he would make more if he held it?
You missed the point entirely. Speculation can make the price drop just as easily as rise. The reality is rising oil prices, the speculators are just smoothing the rise by taking into account future supply and demand. Without them you would see the price vary wildly at points where the government lies about reserve estimates become unbelievable. Speculation does benefit you, it adds nothing to the price on average, you just don't understand it.
How are they adding to the price? Speculators don't care if the price goes up or down as long as they bet right. For every speculator that bets up, there must be one that bets down.
Rising prices reflect the reality of the situation, people predict demand up and supply down in the future. The increased price you experience at the pump is actually smoothing this transition.
If you had it your way the price would stick at $2 a gallon your entire life until the day it runs out and suddenly no one can get any. Ignoring the future is not a virtue.
So... then you perceive some benefit from making it harder for people to invest in general. What is this benefit
I think rush is entertaining but doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time btw. I am not sure why you keep bringing him up, perhaps it makes it easier for you to dismiss other peoples ideas if they happen to align with what he says. I have no idea what his opinion on this is.
Well, the current solution seems to be basically monitoring the ways a company functions. Rather than regulations the company would have to sign a contract with whoever is in charge of the "public land" saying they will do business in such and such way or else open themselves up to lawsuits. Then you monitor the way they do business rather than look for leaks, etc.
The government will make sure to keep the price as low as possible for as long as possible until there is simply none left and there is a disaster that requires more government intervention and police statism. It is better to let the price increase due to increased demand and decreased supply. I can almost guarantee you that this will be more gradual than what would happen if the government was in charge.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a gamble, if anything the more speculators that do this the better. If it works as often as you say that is only because the true value of oil is actually higher than what we pay now. It is slowing world consumption of oil which is a good thing, imo.
That said, this is all bs if the speculators get bailed out when they bet wrong.
Where does this idea come from that speculators always profit? Speculators do not care whether the price goes up or down. If they think the price will go down they will try to get out first, or take out a contract saying they need to repay a certain amount of oil at a later date.
We can stop subsidizing the production of oil and allow energy to find its natural price (I think likely higher than now). Elsewhere the idea came up to raise the fees for excavation rights, I think this would also be better. I won't pretend to know if this could be at all politically feasible, but the current system is just unsustainable.
Just go plot gold/usd vs time and gas price/USD vs time. Go ahead and also plot M2, the national debt, healthcare spending... any of these things over time. Between any two of these, R will be >.5. The common cause is that there is more money. The fed prints money, the banks and government get it, and they use a portion to buy gold and oil. Then the rest is used to create credit, thus raising the prices of everything else. Once people won't take it anymore, wages and salaries of the common man rise to compensate.
This turned out to be the right answer. Look at the charts of gas prices since the 70s and gold prices. They match up almost exactly. The price has everything to do with the fed printing money.
Arrhenius is supporting evidence. The water vapor feedback is the important player, without that CO2 absorption spectrum would be pretty irrelevant to climate. There just isn't enough CO2. It is all about feedbacks. His prediction was right, but the mechanism wrong (or at least incomplete).
I don't really care about the consensus aspect since I need to cede to the professionals anyway. But I did read one of the "showing consensus" papers and it was kind of dumb. They even admitted in the methods that it meant nothing and could just as well be due to selection bias.
The evidence the earth has warmed is pretty undeniable, but only became so after the "sceptics" forced the sensor's to be examined with their own crappy experiment of picking and choosing a couple dozen sensors next to grills and whatnot. The correlation between CO2 emmissions and temp rise is very strong and the most plausible cause for the temp rise is CO2 (there is plenty of theoretical basis for this mechanism). But...
Here is my main thing:
1) How can you be so sure you can predict the future with so few data points and so many overlapping cycles?
2) Why does the media portray it as if runaway global warming is about to occur?
3) Why are people so confident that the increased moisture -> increased high altitude clouds -> increased albedo scenario will not occur?
Sorry if these are dumb questions, I was looking into it awhile back but then got to the point where I was too busy with work to dig any deeper.
Yes, this. The president does not control this, nor should he try to. Artificially lowering oil prices now will only lead to a huge jump later on which will be even more disruptive.
That's because the US government has been corrupted by corporations, it has nothing to do with socialism or free markets other than socialist policies provide a centralized point of power for corporations to target and get favors from. Also what is the price of gas in Norway?
Wow looking through your posts they are idiotic. It has been explained many times in this thread that while consumption in the US is down, it has risen globally... This is why prices still went up.
Huh? "A sudden breakthrough" would mean solar panels could be priced competitively. What do you take it to mean?
It would not be good for the US in the short term, but in the long term the US would control the remaining oil reserves (I think this is an unspoken policy already). You say you'd like a fuel efficient vehicle that is not available in the US due to lack of demand. You attribute this lack of demand to low oil prices (relative to europe). My understanding of european countries is they artificially increase gas prices by taxing it much more. Where does this tax money go?
I don't think any extra action needs to be taken to raise gas prices in the US... just stop subsidizing the industry.
Basically I just think having all these taxes aimed at manipulating demand is ripe for corruption. One industry ends up favored over the other, the more political power a company/industry has the easier it is for them to gain an advantage, etc.
I was focusing on long term factors.
The sad thing is you're gunna be the one left holding the bag and all the people who saw what was going on are going to have to bail you out. Go look at the google trends for housing bubble... it was not unexpected at all. Then once it happened everyone was like: "oh no one saw this coming", bullshit. The only people who didn't see it are those who blindly believe everything they're told. The only solution is to get people to educate themselves.
Anyway, reptilians are more plausible than any of the major deities.
Yes they do...
The cost of storage is built into the price speculators pay... why do you think it isn't? If you would just think instead of ranting, you would realize that the model of what is going on you are using makes no sense.
So, you have no specific examples to point to. The various Fed chairmen have actually said they are pumping bubbles. It is their policy to pump one bubble after the other until it pops. It is the only way to keep the system going.
Glass-steagal was only necessary because banks and other industries were provided way too much credit to play with in 20's. Central planning caused the problem to begin with.
How do they add to the cost? Think about it this way: Why would speculator #1 sell to speculator #2 if speculator #1 thought he would make more if he held it?
You missed the point entirely. Speculation can make the price drop just as easily as rise. The reality is rising oil prices, the speculators are just smoothing the rise by taking into account future supply and demand. Without them you would see the price vary wildly at points where the government lies about reserve estimates become unbelievable. Speculation does benefit you, it adds nothing to the price on average, you just don't understand it.
1) What post deregulation bubbles are you referring to?
2) How did congress try to sabotage the activities of the FED?
How are they adding to the price? Speculators don't care if the price goes up or down as long as they bet right. For every speculator that bets up, there must be one that bets down.
Rising prices reflect the reality of the situation, people predict demand up and supply down in the future. The increased price you experience at the pump is actually smoothing this transition.
If you had it your way the price would stick at $2 a gallon your entire life until the day it runs out and suddenly no one can get any. Ignoring the future is not a virtue.
So... then you perceive some benefit from making it harder for people to invest in general. What is this benefit
I think rush is entertaining but doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time btw. I am not sure why you keep bringing him up, perhaps it makes it easier for you to dismiss other peoples ideas if they happen to align with what he says. I have no idea what his opinion on this is.
Well, the current solution seems to be basically monitoring the ways a company functions. Rather than regulations the company would have to sign a contract with whoever is in charge of the "public land" saying they will do business in such and such way or else open themselves up to lawsuits. Then you monitor the way they do business rather than look for leaks, etc.
The government will make sure to keep the price as low as possible for as long as possible until there is simply none left and there is a disaster that requires more government intervention and police statism. It is better to let the price increase due to increased demand and decreased supply. I can almost guarantee you that this will be more gradual than what would happen if the government was in charge.