Magox

You are one hard headed dude. The economy sucks and is flat lining, global growth is considerably weaker than it was last year or the year before, demand for oil in the US is dropping, global oil supply and production is rising, domestic supplies are 10% higher than it was last year at this time and YET Brent crude WHICH IS THE OIL THAT IS TRADED GLOBALLY averaged a record high last year and on pace to go higher than last year, AND We have record high gasoline prices for this time of the year. You know when you parrot something that you read a trader comment on, you do know that the rationale given for the price rise was for that particular day don't you? So when you say "good employment numbers and refinery issues". All you did was repeat that particular traders analysis for what he attributed for that particular day or days rise. We had a guy at our firm that use to be quoted occasionally at IBD and when they called him for his opinion he'd give them his best opinion based on the word at the floor. It's not long- term analysis, it's extremely short-term.

Again, everything with you is in a vacuum. Thats not the way things work TPS. World growth was considerably stronger then than it is today, not to mention the turmoil and supply disruptions in the Middle East were pushing prices higher. With considerably weaker domestic and global growth we have the highest energy prices EVER for this time of the year. The main driver for the inflation we are experiencing today is more currency driven than anything else. I'm not arguing its the only factor, yet somehow I explain it to you over and over and over and you still keep failing to grasp the concept of relativity of growth from then to today. Why do you keep doing that? It's one of two things, either you are purposely ignoring what I'm saying or that you are too dense to fully comprehend what I'm saying. One of the two

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it will affect almost all asset prices. What are you, a moron? You keep sinking lower and lower. You are incapable of understanding what inflation truly means. Your main flaw and its a big one is the failure to recognize the impact of what currencies do to assets such as commodities. Until you correct this failure of yours we will continue to go in circles, in the meantime, real every day Americans see rising prices ie. inflation as their chief concern . But in your in bubble world, they are wrong, because your metrics say differently. Who cares that the price of gasoline and food continue to rise, despite seeing their wages stagnate. Also commodity prices will one day tumble, for a long period of time, but it will because of one of two reasons. And you can take this to the bank, either the world falls into a long- term slump or the return of hawkish monetary policy will return, which is the most likely scenario. Monetary policy is the number one driver of commodity valuation. More so than actual physical demand and supply. . This is lost upon you no no, you simpleton, TPS' metrics says differently. There is no inflation. Everything is a fantasy, it's just a bubble waiting to burst. In the meantime just about everyday that passes your wages are buying you less and less. But that's not real because TPS says so

I haven't been able to access the RCP site

Just wonderin, how many of you were offended by the interrogations of waterboarding?

Oil, gas .... same thing. The reason why I brought up gas was because that was the news of the day. To your point that we aren't experiencing high inflation, most every day Americans would disagree with you. Who gives a **** what their metrics say? Real every day people spend money on housing, clothing, food, gasoline, health care, education and other goods. For people who are in the lower to middle class, every dollar matters, so when you have costs of essentials such as food and gasoline rising, then it makes a difference. You and I will never see eye to eye on this, you live in a bubble world, whereas most people live in the real world where these things matter. So yes, we are experiencing high inflation, specially considering job creation is barely keeping up with population growth and wages are stagnant. It's simple, if you were able to get out of your bubble and apply common sense you would agree. If wages remain stagnant and the price of essentials such as food and gasoline have risen considerably, then that means disposable income continues to drop. That is what real people in the lower to middle class have to go through. Right here on Page 23, a recent poll showed when asked: 31. Which of the following is the biggest economic problem facing people like you? You know what the number one answer they gave? You guessed it, Rising prices. Rising prices over housing, taxes, unemployment etc. People worry about inflation because they see it.. They see it in their day to day costs, meanwhile you sit in your office or wherever you do, and crunch numbers using metrics that every day people don't give two ***** about. Let that poll sink in for a while. Seriously, let it sink in, read the question a few times, and think about what the result tells us. The reality is that once QE began, the price of virtually everything went up afterwards, just as many people including myself predicted. In regards to this point you made: I guess you missed or didn't understand what I was saying when I responded to your shallow year over year gasoline argument, when I said this: In other words, that of course I don't believe that the price of gasoline rise is completely attributed to QE. There are many other factors, but it certainly is one of the main drivers, without a doubt. I'm gonna try this one more time with you, since you are having a difficult time understanding why your year over year argument is a dishonest argument, and for your sake, I just hope it is dishonest, if not, then you should completely get out of the work you are doing because you are doing no one any good. You are using the year over year argument as your justification that inflation is tame. But you don't account for growth and supply. Without these two variables, your case is non existent. If growth is slower, which means demand for oil is relatively the same, yet supply is increasing, then even if you have a price that is static implies inflationary pressures. If you were to have similar 4.1% GDP growth from where we were one year ago here in the U.S and a world economy that was performing similar to then, then the price of oil would be considerably higher than it is today. Do you understand this? Seriously. I'm curious. It's not that difficult to understand, or is it? When did I imply this? So your argument is that employment figures that are barely showing employment growth relative to population increase is "good economic news" ? Wow! That's how bad the economy is, where we have anemic job growth and flat lining GDP growth and somehow that is misconstrued as "good economic news" In regards to Refinery closings. I traded these markets on the NYMEX for the firm I use to work for and my clients for years, and I can tell you that this is nothing new. So when you dug up an article that stated this as a reason, that means absolutely nothing. Every one in the business understands that what happens is when prices rise for any commodity or stock, they will interview one of the traders or analysts, and that analyst and trader naturally gives their best opinion on why the market went up or down for that day or week. So the refinery closings is nothing new, it is a common occurrence.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/organic-food-healthier-stanford-researchers-nutrition-organic-meats-produce-dairy-better-article-1.1151470#ixzz2K99sSMHJ

Libyan oil production is higher today than it was in the first quarter of 2012. http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/8749925 Read more: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/07/31/Libyas-oil-production-below-pre-war-level/UPI-70431343736840/#ixzz2K4J4HvdE http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/iea-idUSL5E8MD38820121113

Yes, you are the dingbat. Specially considering that you STILL aren't able to grasp the growth relativity argument that I made, which has EVERYTHING to do with the point I made. You at times can be pretty damn dense. Take a deep breath, re read what I wrote, let it digest a bit, and then get back to me. You would have a point if that article was Feb. 2013, but since you posted one from Feb. 2012, which shows strong growth UP TO that point. However, Demand for oil globally the past year, has flat lined. You must have missed this part from my post

We all know DC TOM, and we all know he can be insufferable at times, but we also all know that he's the smartest guy that posts on TBD... When it comes to physics, I'll take the published physicists word over someone who did some reading on Physics.

Oh, you want to play this shallow game? Sure, if the shoe fits So the price of RBOB gasoline on the NYMEX back on March 18th of 2009 the beginning of QE was at 1.36 a gallon. Today it trades north of 3 a gallon. it's an increase of 127% in less than 4 years professor dingbat. Yup, better tell the Fed to put the metal on the pedal. http://futures.tradi...com/chart/RB_/M Now of course, if you wanted to take a more intellectually honest approach, which you don't, you would factor in other variables such as relative growth. How can it be that last year, 2012, GDP for the first quarter of the year posted it's highest number since Obama took office, posting a 4.1% GDP. Yet this year, we are flat lining, and the price of gasoline is higher today than last year? http://www.tradingec...ates/gdp-growth Not to mention Global growth is markedly slower today than it was in the first quarter of last year. http://www.economist...focus-world-gdp How can it be possible that the price of gasoline is higher today, with a considerably weaker domestic and global economy? If growth is much slower, how can gasoline prices be higher without any supply disruptions? So how can that be Professor Dingbat? Think long and hard before you respond, would hate to see you get embarrassed again.

I guess you missed the part of the highest on record for this time of the year? With an economy that is flat lining. Yep, no inflation at all

I never quite understood the "need" argument. What business is of anyone to say what they do and don't need. I can say this, anyone who has this mentality certainly doesn't have the make up of a libertarian minded person.

!@#$

Yep, There is no inflation.

He IS a meathead

Okey dokey

Oh lord, another truther?

Schumer then back tracks on his back track. Schumer stands firm on border security New York Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) wants to immediately end growing chatter in conservative circles that he's backtracking from the bipartisan immigration proposal's border security requirements. Underscoring the fragile nature of the bipartisan talks, Schumer aides said Friday that the senator is completely on board with the idea -- backed by GOP senators -- that the border must first be effectively secured before the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants can obtain permanent legal status, including citizenship. “The bipartisan framework clearly states that the border enforcement metrics must be met before any path to citizenship is triggered, and Sen. Schumer has not wavered from that principle," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said Friday. "At the same time, the border enforcement metrics cannot be an unachievable standard that postpones an earned path to citizenship indefinitely.” The comments underscore the challenge of turning a five-page document into a detailed legislative proposal -- with many details, including over the pathway to citizenship and border security measures -- still to be worked out. As part of that broad bipartisan agreement, illegal immigrants can live and work legally in the United States after they register with the government, pay fines and back taxes -- allowing them to obtain a probationary legal status. But they could not obtain green cards or get on a pathway to citizenship until after a series of border security and enforcement measures take effect. That has been a chief demand of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who endorsed the deal. Schumer aides are responding to a Thursday press conference in which the senator was asked about linking border security to the pathway to citizenship and concerns that illegal immigrants could be waiting in limbo endlessly under the terms of the proposal. Schumer said the senators were trying to make sure border security isn't an "excuse" to block obtaining citizenship. "We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship," Schumer told reporters Thursday. "We just want to make sure -- and this is very important both substantively and politically — that there is a secure border, and we’re going to work for that. The [bipartisan group] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship." Immediately afterward, several conservative news outlets reported on the remarks, suggesting that the New York Democrat was backing off the border security requirements. The National Review ran an item on its website, saying, "Will Rubio Pull Out of the Gang of Eight Now?" But Schumer insists that nothing has changed since last Monday, when he, Rubio and six other senators signed off on the deal. Sorry no link still having troubles copy and pasting links on the iPad Article was from politico. The fact that schumer felt the need to reiterate his support for border enforcement is a positive development. Knowing Obama, he and his political team will still try to drive a wedge between Latinos and the GOP. Most Americans support stricter border security it is up to the R's to make their case, if more libe like schumer support this it will make it tougher for the White House to become more lax on the issue

In most cases I would agree with you, but what makes Ansah's situation even more impressive is that Ansah was on the BYU track team, and never even played football until his college track coach suggested he play football, his sophomore year in COLLEGE. He jeans just began playing football just a few years ago. Oh and he use to run the 200 meters for BYU and ran it in 22 seconds

Here is something from someone slightly more credible than Neil Erwin I remember reading this article back some time ago, which goes into depth regarding this topic. In addition he answers the "Why" that Neil was asking of the deficit hawks. Probably should read the rest, great stuff. And when you have some time, look at this They have done more work on Sovereign debt than anyone, going back over the past 200 years throughout the world, looking into what makes a country more susceptible and so on. I really would suggest you look into it. They back up their hypothesis with empirical data. This one here goes back into the history of Sovereign Debt issues and correlations of more recent examples. Again, I think it would be helpful to you for the read the work they have been gathering for the past few years. I believe it would give you a whole new perspective on the risks of rising debt, even for a country such as ours.

Certainly population factors into unemployment. The Dakota's would have had a relatively low unemployment rate no matter if oil was there or not, but the difference between no oil and oil producing jobs in N.D account from anywhere to a .5%-1% drop. Doesn't sound like much, but it's pretty substantial if you stop to think about it. You probably could see a similar drop in other states as well if the restrictions were pulled and the commitment was there. It's not the end all be all solution, but it would certainly be a part of the equation, at least from my perspective. Job creation wasn't really a big issue for a sustained period here in the U.S since Bush Senior's term at office. So we haven't really had to think about all that much until now. I would say that is why there is the added focus on this subject now.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like this. However this plan wouldn't directly tie the continuation of safety net benefits with job retraining.