Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 I was watching Laurence Meyer, ex federal reserve voting member this morning on CNBC, and this guy and other economic academics including steve liesmann are absolutely battschitt blind. They keep saying over and over that there is no inflation and that oil has very little impact on their inflation expectations, and if that if oil prices did filter into the economy that it would slow it down and therefore woule be considered disinflationary due to its slowing effect on the economy. huh?? What the hell?? No schitt, that is what inflation does, it slows down economies. I also keep hearing that these rising oil prices shouldnt effect the economy that much from many of the stock cheerleaders. Don't get me wrong, I'm 75% invested myself, but I'm scaling back as we speak, because soon, there will be no more QE and the sugar high will end, then we'll be left with $100+ Oil with fiscal and monetary stimulus fading and we'll see whether or not corporations pass down the costs to the consumers or eat it themselves. My guess is a mixture of the two. I just get bent all out of shape hearing these academics who are only able to see through their narrow metrics that are unable to see the effects of future fiscal debt concerns, loose monetary policy implications and rising oil prices. One after another seem to dismiss these threats, they just say something along the lines of "well yeah, if it rises too much then it will have an effect, but we don't foresee any real effects in our models". These are the same guys that have failed models that missed the last downturn. They are either Federal reserve academic gob swallowers or equity cheerleaders. Santelli is the voice of reason on that floor, he gets it. Oh! They're the ones that missed it! Gotcha! Santelli the Great was the profit warning us all along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Oh! They're the ones that missed it! Gotcha! Santelli the Great was the profit warning us all along? Really...I mean really??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) Really...I mean really??? i'm sure that irony was intended. very clever dave! Edited March 5, 2011 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) i'm sure that irony was intended. very clever dave! No, Dave is an idiot. In regards to Roubini, I respect him very much, I use his some of his analysis for what I do and I have quoted him on many occassions. Having said that, he has been wrong on many instances over the past year, that is what happens when you get a perma bull and perma bear. They are always looking for either the bull or bear case with little regards to the other side of the argument. Which is why the stock cheerleaders are always looking for the upside and the perma bears such as roubini always looking for the downfall. Edited March 5, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Cushing oil supplies plays a very little role in prices, the main driver of oil is demand, presently it's fear of supply disruptions thats driving prices higher. Brent is now the barometer of global demand-supply, yes, but you still seem to be missing the point made in that link. What's going on with WTI and inventories at Cushing are related to the financialization of oil (and commodities in general), the long positions that commodity ETFs take, and therefore the rollover. The "play" that she is suggesting is to take advantage of the ETF (USO) "rollover" which will drive prices of the expiring March futures contract down during the rollover period, hence she suggests shorting oil to take advantage of the fixed obligations by the ETFs. This is what I posted about in a previous link, that the smart players can take advantage of the ETFs that have known long obligations and will rollover their contracts over a specified period of time. [For those on the sidelines, this means that the largest ETF USO, first has to "liquidate" its long positions in the March contracts--selling March contracts next week so they don't have to take delivery, thus driving the price down; then they jump back in buying longer dated contracts to maintain their long-only position. As the ETFs grow, their influence during the roll period is growing too.] Her point also, as it relates to most of us, is that prices to US consumers are being jacked up based on what "might happen" in the ME and NAfrica (MENA), yet there is a glut and growing inventory of oil at the largest refinery point in the US. The price increase is not a current supply or demand issue; it's a what-if issue; but that's what speculators always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Sorry, that's just not acceptable. I would rather endure the fleeting burning pain of a bullet passing through my head than to experience a world in which the greatest nation on earth has fallen to a third world status. You'll need the proper t-shirt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Oh christ, here we go... convene the Jedi council! amazingly, there will be 3 page posts in this thread, and nobody will compare about length! somebody go get GG! No, Dave is an idiot. Just brushing aside all benefit of the doubt in absolute terms. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts