Because you're claiming ignorance of the several people in between the creator of the oil and the refinery. Each one of those asshat speculators is adding to the price.
These people should be banned from investing, period.
So? During this whole time, the rest of us get fucked because they are allowed to play their shitty games. I don't give a fuck that they might possibly eventually get screwed, perhaps. I care that they are fucking with the price of oil with absolutely no benefit to everyone else.
No, it's not. The system we have now allows a barrel of oil to be sold several times before it actually arrives, with none of the intermediate buyers having to take delivery of the oil, but all of them adding to the cost of it. Outlaw that, and you'd see a lot less upbidding in the price of oil.
Home Depot isn't going to let you just leave the lumber there indefinitely.
If you get someone else to take possession, what's the difference between that and selling them your contract to begin with?
It's HUGE. You are still responsible for that oil, and you still have to make arrangements to store it. You're dealing with an actual, physical object, instead of a few pieces of paper.
Further, it seems that most of these speculators don't have to actually pay the price for storage when they can't sell.
Maybe instead the rules should be changed so it is easier for corporations to be sued over externalities or something.
No, that's still an extremely shitty idea. For one, even if it's easier, it's still going to be expensive, both in costs of legal representation, and time to actually take things to court. Building these things into taxes is the easiest, and most transparent way to do so.
Maybe we aren't producing enough in relation to the other countries.
We aren't. Because we can't. The Saudis, for instance, sell a fuckload more oil on the global market, and then actually have an impact on price. We sell a pittance, and thus have no impact on price.
Since I don't see widespread environmental disasters in countries with far lower pollution guidelines than ours
And I'm guessing you haven't looked at all. Check out Nigeria.
Ignoring the insults, the gist of his message isn't accurate either. He's trying to claim that more supply will lower prices, but he's forgetting about the demand part. He's also forgetting that, even with the recent ramp ups in production, the US doesn't produce enough oil to have a significant impact on price. So when we have additional oil here, we could sell it for a lower price, or we could sell it on the global market for a higher price. Which one would you honestly do?
Call bullshit all you want, but make sure you're actually calling bullshit accurately.
The US increasing oil production doesn't have an effect on gas prices mainly because of asshat speculators, and because even increasing production, the US's oil production is not significant enough to affect global oil prices.
The only way that would possibly work is if you massively beefed up public transit in the US and subsidized it with oil taxes. Which no one is willing to do.
The free market works, and the US grew great believing that. But now you seem to stop wanting to believe it. If you do, you will lose its benefits as well as its costs. So you want Saudi civil liberties as the price of Saudi gas prices?
I'm sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, nor any knowledge of countries like Norway, where they have both the benefits of socialism, with civil liberties on par with or higher than the US.
The market is giving you a simple signal. CUT YOUR OIL CONSUMPTION.
The problem is, oil consumption in the US is down, and has been for a while. Prices have still gone up. Seems to me that the free market only works for those who want to make a profit off of high gas prices, not for the country as a whole.
If they obtain it from U.S. soil, refine on U.S. soil, and sell on U.S. soil there is no reason for a spike for the U.S. caused by world factors.
You're trying to pretend like the US oil market is somehow insulated from the global oil market. It's not.
If the price of oil spikes from $120 to $150 like the parent suggested, then domestic oil producers are going to try and sell their oil to those paying $150/barrel. As a result, domestic refineries are going to have to pay $150/barrel in order to actually get any oil.
The only way your thing would work is if there was a ban on exporting oil. And that would have so many problems arising from it that it wouldn't be feasible.
Yeah, it's called speculation. Those asshats will buy oil simply because they think the price is too low, and hold on to it. There are stories of oil barges sitting idle, full of oil, for months, just because of this.
Fuck you back for thinking that the rest of us should subsidize a lifestyle for you where you drive 50 miles to and from work each day. You wanna live that far from your job? Then you can pay for it.
statism provides more opportunity for 'steamrolling' than the non aggression principle ever could.
What 'non-aggression' principle? You completely missed his point. Those who can will steamroll over people just because they can, whether they be in private industry or not, and whether they have government support or not.
The power of freedom of association and mutually voluntary exchange is not to 'steamroll' people. That is an exclusive domain of violence.
Are you honestly trying to say that the rich and powerful will not fuck people over simply because they can? If so, then you're clearly not an Objectivist, you're a retard.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care about their "future wealth". I care about the current price of gas, which I need to get to and from work.
Because you're claiming ignorance of the several people in between the creator of the oil and the refinery. Each one of those asshat speculators is adding to the price.
These people should be banned from investing, period.
We wouldn't have a speculation problem because we wouldn't have an economy.
So? During this whole time, the rest of us get fucked because they are allowed to play their shitty games. I don't give a fuck that they might possibly eventually get screwed, perhaps. I care that they are fucking with the price of oil with absolutely no benefit to everyone else.
No, it's not. The system we have now allows a barrel of oil to be sold several times before it actually arrives, with none of the intermediate buyers having to take delivery of the oil, but all of them adding to the cost of it. Outlaw that, and you'd see a lot less upbidding in the price of oil.
Home Depot isn't going to let you just leave the lumber there indefinitely.
If you get someone else to take possession, what's the difference between that and selling them your contract to begin with?
It's HUGE. You are still responsible for that oil, and you still have to make arrangements to store it. You're dealing with an actual, physical object, instead of a few pieces of paper.
Further, it seems that most of these speculators don't have to actually pay the price for storage when they can't sell.
That's not what he said at all, you dolt.
The law would be, if you buy a futures contract for oil, you have to actually take delivery of it and use it.
All I hear from your bullshit is, "I don't care about Arctic Wildlife, so I think we should drill, damn the consequences!"
Maybe instead the rules should be changed so it is easier for corporations to be sued over externalities or something.
No, that's still an extremely shitty idea. For one, even if it's easier, it's still going to be expensive, both in costs of legal representation, and time to actually take things to court. Building these things into taxes is the easiest, and most transparent way to do so.
Maybe we aren't producing enough in relation to the other countries.
We aren't. Because we can't. The Saudis, for instance, sell a fuckload more oil on the global market, and then actually have an impact on price. We sell a pittance, and thus have no impact on price.
Since I don't see widespread environmental disasters in countries with far lower pollution guidelines than ours
And I'm guessing you haven't looked at all. Check out Nigeria.
For you to argue against this is to argue against all the Democrats who were screaming for Bush to tell the Saudis to increase production.
You can't compare those situations. For one, the Saudis sell a lot of oil on the market. The US doesn't, comparatively.
Ignoring the insults, the gist of his message isn't accurate either. He's trying to claim that more supply will lower prices, but he's forgetting about the demand part. He's also forgetting that, even with the recent ramp ups in production, the US doesn't produce enough oil to have a significant impact on price. So when we have additional oil here, we could sell it for a lower price, or we could sell it on the global market for a higher price. Which one would you honestly do?
Call bullshit all you want, but make sure you're actually calling bullshit accurately.
The US increasing oil production doesn't have an effect on gas prices mainly because of asshat speculators, and because even increasing production, the US's oil production is not significant enough to affect global oil prices.
Yes, let's fuck the poor even more.
The only way that would possibly work is if you massively beefed up public transit in the US and subsidized it with oil taxes. Which no one is willing to do.
The free market works, and the US grew great believing that. But now you seem to stop wanting to believe it. If you do, you will lose its benefits as well as its costs. So you want Saudi civil liberties as the price of Saudi gas prices?
I'm sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, nor any knowledge of countries like Norway, where they have both the benefits of socialism, with civil liberties on par with or higher than the US.
The market is giving you a simple signal. CUT YOUR OIL CONSUMPTION.
The problem is, oil consumption in the US is down, and has been for a while. Prices have still gone up. Seems to me that the free market only works for those who want to make a profit off of high gas prices, not for the country as a whole.
Care to try again?
Because otherwise it's SOCIALIZM! You don't want these companies to not make profits, do you?
If they obtain it from U.S. soil, refine on U.S. soil, and sell on U.S. soil there is no reason for a spike for the U.S. caused by world factors.
You're trying to pretend like the US oil market is somehow insulated from the global oil market. It's not.
If the price of oil spikes from $120 to $150 like the parent suggested, then domestic oil producers are going to try and sell their oil to those paying $150/barrel. As a result, domestic refineries are going to have to pay $150/barrel in order to actually get any oil.
The only way your thing would work is if there was a ban on exporting oil. And that would have so many problems arising from it that it wouldn't be feasible.
Prices don't come down because we simply don't have enough oil to sell on the world market to affect prices.
Then do NOT dare to make the rest of us subsidize your lifestyle. Prepare to pay out the ass for gas taxes, and road use taxes.
Yeah, it's called speculation. Those asshats will buy oil simply because they think the price is too low, and hold on to it. There are stories of oil barges sitting idle, full of oil, for months, just because of this.
Fuck you back for thinking that the rest of us should subsidize a lifestyle for you where you drive 50 miles to and from work each day. You wanna live that far from your job? Then you can pay for it.
I really, really wish I hadn't clicked on the link to Rush's site.
Say whatever you want; the reporting requirements for offering stock are NOT a bad thing.
statism provides more opportunity for 'steamrolling' than the non aggression principle ever could.
What 'non-aggression' principle? You completely missed his point. Those who can will steamroll over people just because they can, whether they be in private industry or not, and whether they have government support or not.
The power of freedom of association and mutually voluntary exchange is not to 'steamroll' people. That is an exclusive domain of violence.
Are you honestly trying to say that the rich and powerful will not fuck people over simply because they can? If so, then you're clearly not an Objectivist, you're a retard.