Is The White House Trying To Screw Romney By

[OCinBuffalo]

I thought it was OC. DC Tom never bothers with posts that long, and OC is one of the few people I can see arguing with himself

 

I was able to fire you up with a silly scarf thing....

 

Will get to this later. Dinner appointments...

You idiots better not ruin this for me...

[IDBillzFan]

So...you replied to my contention by.......mentioning the same thing. So I just renew the points I made about bicameralism and hope for a more pointed response.

 

On to your Stimulus point: You didn't like it. Understood. I know people of all political persuasions who enjoyed being put to work on infrastructural projects on Rt. 7, Rt. 81, and 495. They were out of work since Bush. They were put to work because of Stimulus funds.

 

Did nothing for you - got it. It did something for some. Hope you got that.

It's not that it did nothing for me. It did nothing it was supposed to do. For every dollar spent putting a person to work on Route 7 there's another ten dollars spent on moronic stuff like grape genetics and Solyndra. And this is why your reasoning, for what it is worth, is so flawed. As has been discussed here before, the problem with the Stimulus bill was not that it was wrong in theory, but wrong in execution. It was Stage 1 Amateur Hour at the WH, which fell for the age-old mistake of thinking that randomly throwing money at a problem will make the problem go away.

 

A trillion dollars later, and all you've got to show for it are a handful of people who got some temporary work on Route 7, a bankrupt solar panel company, John Murtha's airport and unemployment STILL over 9%.

 

This was the direct result of the Democrats owning the WH and both houses. Act first while they have a majority, and think later. Same with Obamacare. Do you think Pelosi saying "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" was a slip of the tongue? No, it was pure honesty. "We don't know what we're doing, but at least we're doing something, so stand by and we'll let you know if we're doing the right thing."

 

But hey...use "bicameralism" again because it makes you sound so smart.

[Magox]

Taking your post in turn:

 

1. "Rant" - "To speak or declaim extravagantly OR violently; communicate in a vehement way."

 

So what about the word "rant" is a personal attack? Incidentally I "ranted" at various times during this thread. Am I insulting myself by characterizing my own words at various points as a "rant"?

 

Most importantly, if you are trying to use my characterizing of your words, in one segment of your response, as "rant," in an effort to justify your name-calling and personal attacks, do you back-track now that you're proven incorrect?

 

2. If I have to explain to you about how a speculator daily purchases oil futures at a price that is inconsistent with the current market price effectively causing a "stop pro" or "full stop" by oil producers who salivate at the opportunity to take advantage of the future price...then I'll understand the preterite tense in your verb "to trade." I'd like to know your thoughts on why back in 2005-6, when petroleum reserves were at a near decade high, oil prices sky-rocketed, if not for an articificially created market.

 

Maybe we will just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

3. I said that the WH isn't overly worried about Romney, and you cite polls 12 months out that show Romney ahead in a couple of polls in this theoretical match-up. So, let me get this straight, your support for why the WH is most scared of Romney is because you can cite a Quinnipiac poll which shows Romney ahead? Or a handful of polls? (Incidentally, CNN, Rasmussen, and Fox have Obama ahead)

 

I'm basing my belief on conversations with some good folks who I have the pleasure of knowing. You're basing yours on a poll of 1000 people conducted between 6 and 8 on M-TH. I have my approach. You have yours. Just wanted to share some tidbits gleened during some interesting convos.

It's not just based on Polls, the reason why the poll was cited was to back up my claim. Obama lost independents sometime during the health insurance debate, and has never regained them ever since. Even when he's attempted shifting to the middle they still didn't gravitate towards him. He's not getting them back, unless he goes up against a polarizing goof and Mitt doesn't fit that bill. If you believe that Obama can win back the Independents against a moderate candidate then your political awareness is sorely lacking.

 

Say what you want, but they are very worried about a Mitt matchup. In regards to some polls showing Obama leading, that is logical, as I stated before, the GOP hasn't coalesced around any candidate yet, Specially Mitt, but when the primaries are over with they will and those numbers will show an even larger lead for him.

 

 

I'd like to know your thoughts on why back in 2005-6, when petroleum reserves were at a near decade high, oil prices sky-rocketed, if not for an articificially created market.

 

Wow! No wonder, you have no clue how the oil markets work. First off, Oil traders pay little attention to Cushing Ok, Oil supplies. As I've told my clients for years, forget about Oil Supplies in Cushing Ok, it isn't indicative of Global supply/demand. What dicticates oil prices more than anything is Demand, Currency fluctuations and supply disruptions.

 

So let's take a look at GLobal supply and demand for oil in 2005/2006 According to the IEA, oil demand in the fourth quarter of the year was at 85.7 M barrels a day vs. 85M barrels a day of supply. When Demand outpaces supply, prices tend to rise.

 

Second, we had this Hurricane that you may have heard about in the Summer of 2005, named Katrina, where close to a million barrels a day were shut in, not to mention all the refineries that were knocked out causing bottlenecks. You see, when you have a market that is in tight suppy (demand outpacing supply) and you have a fear or even worse yet an actual supply disruption, prices tend to spike. Over time when supplies come back online, prices find a medium.

 

2006 the value of the US dollar plummeted.

 

SO the next time you hear something about US oil supplies, remember, what matters most aren't supply levels in Cushing OK, but rather Demand growth coming from the BRIC nations.

 

ill-informed people like yourself tend to believe that what happens here in the US dictates overall prices. That' the way it use to be, not anymore. Oil and commodities are more driven by demand growth, and where is the growth? the BRIC and periphery nations.

 

I call you ill-informed, because, well, that's what you are, or you wouldn't of referred to Cushion Ok Oil supplies for your case against high oil prices for 2005-2006. Everyone in the know in this industry understands this.

 

Having said all that, without a doubt, whenever a "story" that supports a Bull case for oil prices or for that matter anything that can be traded causes prices to go higher, prices can get overdone, or what we refer to in our business a bit "frothy", simply put Overbought. But those are short-term developments that ALWAYS correct, which play virtually no role in the overall trajectory of prices. So speculators that choose to add to the froth at these overbought levels, usually tend to get their asses handed to them unless they trade with really tight stops.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

It's not just based on Polls, the reason why the poll was cited was to back up my claim.

If liberals didn't keep bringing up John Huntsman as a viable candidate, no one would.

[LeviF]

I was able to fire you up with a silly scarf thing....

Only because you were wrong

[Dante]

You chimed in with the "rant" characterization Hypocrite

 

 

The reason why I didn't specifically answer your points, is because I have on this board countless times and I didn't feel like doing it again. Having said that I traded on the NYMEX oil futures for a number of years, so please excuse me that I didn't address your ridiculous theory of buying oil and storing them on storage tankers somehow affected the trajectory of oil prices. Please tell me again how this influenced today's oil prices.

 

also, tell us how with your "fact" based inside info that the Obama administration is not worried about Romney considering polling numbers

 

 

 

So I guess they disregard every poll out there that shows that against Romney, the independents abandon Obama. Even in the national overall polls Obama loses in a matchup, and mind you, the Conservatives haven't coalesced around Romney (look at Far right Dante from this board, i guarantee you that he is one that doesn't support Romney in those polls, but I guarantee you that if and when Romney wins the primaries and he has only 2 choices between him and Obama, he'll hold his nose and vote Romney, why? because the Anti Obama sentiment is powerful much like that of the anti Bush electorate of 08), so yeah, wait until he wins the primaries, then you will see those numbers show an even larger discrepancy than what we are seeing today.

 

So please spare us with your hollow arguments.

Sure, "Anyone but Obama" is surely my position. I have to take issue with being tagged as "far right" Unless being conservative and believing in the Constitution now qualifies for being extreme. I have a couple major concerns with Romney. His backing of TARP and his implementation of state medical in Mass. Romney seems like a fake conservative to me. One of the establishment Republicans. Yes he would be better than Obama but we can't settle for just better. We need someone to roll back all the wrongs that have been done. I don't believe this is the guy to squash Obamacare. If he does get the nomination how could he even argue against Obamacare since he had a similar program in his own state? That campaign issue would be essentially neutralized thus aiding Obamas re election hopes. I don't think he is the guy to streamline the government. I just don't see it in him. Again, one guys opinion. So far I kinda like Herman Cain. I don't care if he is not polished. I think the guys pretty articulate. He's a self made businessman from the private sector and I guess that just appeals to me more.

[Magox]

Sure, "Anyone but Obama" is surely my position. I have to take issue with being tagged as "far right" Unless being conservative and believing in the Constitution now qualifies for being extreme. I have a couple major concerns with Romney. His backing of TARP and his implementation of state medical in Mass. Romney seems like a fake conservative to me. One of the establishment Republicans. Yes he would be better than Obama but we can't settle for just better. We need someone to roll back all the wrongs that have been done. I don't believe this is the guy to squash Obamacare. If he does get the nomination how could he even argue against Obamacare since he had a similar program in his own state? That campaign issue would be essentially neutralized thus aiding Obamas re election hopes. I don't think he is the guy to streamline the government. I just don't see it in him. Again, one guys opinion. So far I kinda like Herman Cain. I don't care if he is not polished. I think the guys pretty articulate. He's a self made businessman from the private sector and I guess that just appeals to me more.

I didn't cal you extreme, I said far right. I would have to say that is a fair characterization. Why? Anyone who believes Mitt Romney is a liberal, which means leans pretty damn far to the left, would have to be someone who is pretty damn far to the right. Romney believes in lower taxes, less regulation and is a fervent believer of capitalism and the free markets. Sorry, but I don't know of a single liberal that shares all those same values.

 

In regards to undoing ObamaCare, that fate will be decided on election day. If the GOP has control of the House and Senate then he will repeal it, if they don't, then it won't get done. It's as simple as that.

 

In regards to Romneycare hurting his chances in the general elections?? Not a chance, independents aren't nearly as passionate about undoing Obamacare as Conservatives are. Sure, for the most part they believe it is a bad piece of legislation but it won't be a major election issue. It matters much more in the primares than it will there. Dante, youhave to realize, OBama has lost the independents, the only shot that Obama has at regaining them is if the GOP puts a polarizing goofball or "not ready for primetime" candidate. Against Mitt, he loses.

 

In regards to Cain, I like him, and I believe he has a shot, but an outside shot at defeating Obama. He's gaffe prone, not experienced (haven't we aready seen what a president who lacks experience can do?) and honestly doesn'thave command of the substantive issues. I mean don't get me wrong, I believe he's charasmatic and he seems to be a take charge kinda guy, but I just don't see him being ready for the job.

 

ALso lets not forget that Romney was a very successful businessman from the private sector.

[Juror#8]

If liberals didn't keep bringing up John Huntsman as a viable candidate, no one would.

 

Hope you're not referring to me. I'm surely not a liberal (although I don't consider the term "liberal" as a pejorative) and I never once said that he is a viable candidate. He is just the one that the WH has the most concern about.

[Magox]

Still, the Obama campaign hadn’t planned to target Romney this directly, this early.

 

 

They had hoped Perry — or even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, whom they feared less than Romney or Perry — would bloody up Romney over the next few months before securing the nomination. But the Texas governor’s recent fade and Christie’s decision to back Romney has changed all that, forcing the Obama forces to directly engage Romney, the candidate many Democrats say is capable of challenging the president among independents in a wider array of battleground states than Perry.

 

hmmm, oddly enough this is the point that I have been making. Weird

 

On Tuesday night, Romney seemed to cast a jaundiced eye on all payroll tax cuts, telling Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman, “Look, I don’t like little Band- Aids. I want to fundamentally restructure America’s foundation economically.”

 

That incensed Axelrod who was disgusted no one at the GOP debate at Dartmouth College knew enough about the issue to challenge Romney.

 

He quickly reached out to top staffers in Chicago and Washington, who decided to fire the first major salvo of the campaign — a media conference call in the morning similar to the dozens of calls Axelrod held to ding Hillary Clinton and McCain during the 2008 campaign.

 

"Incensed" and "disgusted", yep, sounds like the characteristics of a man who isn't worried.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65827_Page2.html#ixzz1afa7JCO6

Edited October 13, 2011 by Magox

[DC Tom]

you guys realize juror#8 is DC Tom right?

 

Go oppress a minority, racist.

[Juror#8]

It's not just based on Polls, the reason why the poll was cited was to back up my claim. Obama lost independents sometime during the health insurance debate, and has never regained them ever since. Even when he's attempted shifting to the middle they still didn't gravitate towards him. He's not getting them back, unless he goes up against a polarizing goof and Mitt doesn't fit that bill. If you believe that Obama can win back the Independents against a moderate candidate then your political awareness is sorely lacking.

 

Say what you want, but they are very worried about a Mitt matchup. In regards to some polls showing Obama leading, that is logical, as I stated before, the GOP hasn't coalesced around any candidate yet, Specially Mitt, but when the primaries are over with they will and those numbers will show an even larger lead for him.

 

 

 

 

Wow! No wonder, you have no clue how the oil markets work. First off, Oil traders pay little attention to Cushing Ok, Oil supplies. As I've told my clients for years, forget about Oil Supplies in Cushing Ok, it isn't indicative of Global supply/demand. What dicticates oil prices more than anything is Demand, Currency fluctuations and supply disruptions.

 

So let's take a look at GLobal supply and demand for oil in 2005/2006 According to the IEA, oil demand in the fourth quarter of the year was at 85.7 M barrels a day vs. 85M barrels a day of supply. When Demand outpaces supply, prices tend to rise.

 

Second, we had this Hurricane that you may have heard about in the Summer of 2005, named Katrina, where close to a million barrels a day were shut in, not to mention all the refineries that were knocked out causing bottlenecks. You see, when you have a market that is in tight suppy (demand outpacing supply) and you have a fear or even worse yet an actual supply disruption, prices tend to spike. Over time when supplies come back online, prices find a medium.

 

2006 the value of the US dollar plummeted.

 

SO the next time you hear something about US oil supplies, remember, what matters most aren't supply levels in Cushing OK, but rather Demand growth coming from the BRIC nations.

 

ill-informed people like yourself tend to believe that what happens here in the US dictates overall prices. That' the way it use to be, not anymore. Oil and commodities are more driven by demand growth, and where is the growth? the BRIC and periphery nations.

 

I call you ill-informed, because, well, that's what you are, or you wouldn't of referred to Cushion Ok Oil supplies for your case against high oil prices for 2005-2006. Everyone in the know in this industry understands this.

 

Having said all that, without a doubt, whenever a "story" that supports a Bull case for oil prices or for that matter anything that can be traded causes prices to go higher, prices can get overdone, or what we refer to in our business a bit "frothy", simply put Overbought. But those are short-term developments that ALWAYS correct, which play virtually no role in the overall trajectory of prices. So speculators that choose to add to the froth at these overbought levels, usually tend to get their asses handed to them unless they trade with really tight stops.

 

1. You're welcome to cite your Quinnipiac data and the pulse of independents based on polls 13 months removed from the election and before the opposition candidate is chosen - incidentally when most independents are entirely dis-engaged from the political process - as demonstrative proof that Mitt is their biggest concern.

 

He is not. Repeat, The WH is not concerned about a Mitt matchup. You're trying to advance an opinion that is in direct contradiction with the beliefs of the people whom you claim to know ("know" - with respect to their political mindset). That is analogous to you proclaiming vehemently that I'm thinking about oatmeal for breakfast when I'm thinking about pancakes and telling you, unequivocally, that I'm thinking about pancakes.

 

And silly me for observing you behave in this fiendish way.

 

I know, for a fact, that the WH's biggest political concern is not Mitt Romney. Fact. Period. The end. If this is an issue of "belief," then simply just mention that you don't believe me and let's stop wasting our times discussing this ad infinitum. I still won't stop opining, and I'll still discuss facts when I know them. I appreciate your opinion - even when tainted with name-calling. I understand that your style is abrasive - hoping that the interlocutor acquiesces.

 

Not me though. I like it. I think it's cute.

 

 

2. I never professed to be an expert in oil markets. That seems to be your area. But I know enough to have an intelligent conversation and I like to consider myself somewhat proficient in common sense. What common sense tells me is that the dramatic incline is gas prices over about an 9+ month timeframe is inconsistent with any natural economic trend. Never (to my knowledge), in the history of this petroleum producing, gas-engine, century and some change, have we seen the magnitude of gas price hike that occured during that timeframe.

 

Not after 9/11

Not after disastrous hurricanes

Not after earthquakes and other debilitating natural disasters of profound moment

Not after wars, strife and other international conflicts

Not after Iran, Iraq, Milosevic, Khomeini, Castro, Hussein, Pyongyang, Gorbachev, Arafat, etc.

 

I realize that prices may have fluctuated in the above instances. But magnitude is what impresses me.

 

My opinion is that hoarding, speculating, and profit-acquisition inconsistent with a supply-demand trend impacted the price of petroleum. I believe this based on historical data; the fact that 60%+ of oil contracts in the futures market is held by speculative entities; the fact that the amount of money that Wall Street and hedge funds had placed in the commodoties markets went from 13 billion to 300 billion in 5 years, and inconsistencies with the supply/demand proclamation.

 

If it is simply supply/demand, then how do you explain oil jumping $25 a barrel on one day on or about Sept. 21, 2008? Recently I read that from Q4 of 2007 to Q2 of 2008 (the period of the most recent significant spike), worldwide supply went up, while worldwide demand went down, yet prices still sky-rocketed.

 

Why?

 

I'm sure that there is a fancy reason for why this happened which is common-place to you, because, ya know, you worked on Wall Street. And I'm sure that I won't be able to count on both hands the amount of name-calling that is mentioned in your next post.

 

But with that said, I'm unconvinced with what you're saying.

 

I believe that it is, what I think that it is. It's inconsistent. Unnatural. Not attributable to supply and demand.

 

It stinks.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

Good morning.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Juror#8

[Magox]

1. You're welcome to cite your Quinnipiac data and the pulse of independents based on polls 13 months removed from the election and before the opposition candidate is chosen - incidentally when most independents are entirely dis-engaged from the political process - as demonstrative proof that Mitt is their biggest concern.

 

He is not. Repeat, The WH is not concerned about a Mitt matchup. You're trying to advance an opinion that is in direct contradiction with the beliefs of the people whom you claim to know ("know" - with respect to their political mindset). That is analogous to you proclaiming vehemently that I'm thinking about oatmeal for breakfast when I'm thinking about pancakes and telling you, unequivocally, that I'm thinking about pancakes.

 

And silly me for observing you behave in this fiendish way.

 

I know, for a fact, that the WH's biggest political concern is not Mitt Romney. Fact. Period. The end. If this is an issue of "belief," then simply just mention that you don't believe me and let's stop wasting our times discussing this ad infinitum. I still won't stop opining, and I'll still discuss facts when I know them. I appreciate your opinion - even when tainted with name-calling. I understand that your style is abrasive - hoping that the interlocutor acquiesces.

 

Not me though. I like it. I think it's cute.

 

 

2. I never professed to be an expert in oil markets. That seems to be your area. But I know enough to have an intelligent conversation and I like to consider myself somewhat proficient in common sense. What common sense tells me is that the dramatic incline is gas prices over about an 9+ month timeframe is inconsistent with any natural economic trend. Never (to my knowledge), in the history of this petroleum producing, gas-engine, century and some change, have we seen the magnitude of gas price hike that occured during that timeframe.

 

Not after 9/11

Not after disastrous hurricanes

Not after earthquakes and other debilitating natural disasters of profound moment

Not after wars, strife and other international conflicts

Not after Iran, Iraq, Milosevic, Khomeini, Castro, Hussein, Pyongyang, Gorbachev, Arafat, etc.

 

I realize that prices may have fluctuated in the above instances. But magnitude is what impresses me.

 

My opinion is that hoarding, speculating, and profit-acquisition inconsistent with a supply-demand trend impacted the price of petroleum. I believe this based on historical data; the fact that 60%+ of oil contracts in the futures market is held by speculative entities; the fact that the amount of money that Wall Street and hedge funds had placed in the commodoties markets went from 13 billion to 300 billion in 5 years, and inconsistencies with the supply/demand proclamation.

 

If it is simply supply/demand, then how do you explain oil jumping $25 a barrel on one day on Sept. 21, 2008. Recently I read that from Q4 of 2007 to Q2 of 2008 (the period of the most recent significant spike), worldwide supply went up, worldwide demand went down, yet prices sky-rocketed.

 

Why?

 

I'm sure that there is a fancy reason for why this happened which is common-place to you, because, ya know, you were on Wall Street. And I'm sure that I won't be able to count on both hands the amount of name-calling that is mentioned in your post, but with that said, I'm unconvinced with what you're saying.

 

I think that it is, what I think that it is. Inconsistent. Unnatural. Not attributable to supply and demand. It stinks.

 

We can agree to disagree.

 

Good morning.

 

Like I said, you can keep saying that they aren't worried about Mitt until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that they are.

 

And if you think I'm abrasive, then you haven't... oh NM

 

And you can't count on your hand the amount of name calling that you believe I have committed? What, were you in some sort of injury where you lost most of your fingers?

 

let's play your game for a second.

 

ill-informed: lacking adequate or proper knowledge or information, as in one particular subject or in a variety of subjects:

 

That's not name calling that is an accurate description or characterization of your knowledge of the oil markets.

 

And when I said your political awareness is sorely lacking. again, not name calling, but a fair observation IF you believed that Obama would not lose independents against a moderate candidate.

 

When I said "you have no clue in how the oil markets works", is that name calling? Nope.

 

Now on to the oil markets:

 

I believe this based on historical data; the fact that 60%+ of oil contracts are held by speculative entities

 

You see, when you say stuff like this, it once again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of how markets work. You seem to believe that the more speculators there are in a market, the higher the prices, or at least that's what you are inferring, because after all we are speaking about your belief that speculators are directly attributed to today's higher prices.

 

Now try to wrap your head around this, you see, speculators take both sides of the markets, they go short and they go long based on MARKET FUNDAMENTALS. Sometimes, when markets are overly bearish, prices tend to overshoot to the downside, and the same goes for the upside.

 

In regards to why did the price of oil shoot to the up over $25 in a day? Well, since I was in the markets and I remember that day very clearly its quite simple. But before I get to that day, the demand for Oil coming from China was exploding, you may remember that was the year of the Chinese Olympics, and China was buying so much oil that year in the run-up to their monumental event, that there were shortages of oil tankers and oil was INDEED in short supply, oil demand for a 2 month time period was in deficit by close to 2M barrels a day. The numbers you cite are skewed because the 4thQ demand of oil 2007 was higher than the 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 for one simple reason. Hmmm, lets try to figure out what that reason could be. I know you can do it. Think back.

 

Oh yeah! That's right, The financial meltdown. So lets take a look at the time periods and prices to see if those prices were justified based on Demand.

 

Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2007 was higher than in 2008, that is true and the price was $95 a barrel

 

Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 was lower than in 2007 and the price was $42 a barrel

 

Wow! How could demand in 4thQ of 2007 be higher than the demand of oil in the 4thQ of 2008 AND the prices were higher?? that isn't justified. Wait, What??

 

 

So again, you were trying to make the point that prices were too high based on demand being higher in 2007 than in 2008.. Yet the price of oil wasn't even 50% of the price of 2007. Thanks for making my point though, which is that sometimes when extreme bearishness sets in, prices overshoot to the downside as well. But seriously, I'm glad you brought up that stat

 

Oh and the $25 price movement in a single day. Well for an ill-informed observer such as yourself, it is quite reasonable to question how we could possibly see a day like that one. Once again, the answer is quite simple. You see, when you have extreme bearishness setting in, a lot of SPECULATORS begin to place their bearish bets. The price of oil was beginning to come down hard... so when you have "news" that is seen as potentially bullish, all those SPECULATORS cover their shorts, and you have a massive short covering rally, and of course you get some SPECULATORS that look to try to take advantage of that very very short-term movement. Hence the explosive 1 day movement. You see we call these things "Corrections". Get it? Correction. Meaning, correcting itself to a more fundamentally accepted price. Amazing how those things work.

 

You haven't been here long enough to know that I have made some of these explanations before.

 

I used the word "trajectory" for a reason. Short-term price movements are exactly that, short-term. So where do you believe the price of oil was after September 21st 2008, one week later? 2 weeks later? 3 weeks later?

 

I have it right here for you

 

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

 

September 26, 2008 $106.89

October 3, 2008 $93.88

October 10, 2008 $77.70

 

 

Did you know, that the one day anomaly of that price spike never affected prices at the pump? Yep it didn't.

 

Also, it appears that prices weren't justified. After the Chinese olympics, Demand declined sharply, because the Chinese dramatically cut off their purchases of oil, prices began to decline, the world was slowing down due to the financial crisis and subsequently prices of oil did as well.

 

Another point about the Chinese, I remember, because I was trading oil at the time, the Chinese were bidding for oil from suppliers that we normally purchased from, and there were shipments that were diverted from our destination over to China because of their insatiable appetite for oil they had leading into the Olympics.

 

You believe this could of had an impact on prices?

 

 

But, keep looking for the boogie men, because well, that's what you like to do.

 

 

Oh and btw, just so we don't waste each others time any further, I was against the Repeal of GS. I am for sensible regulations, not punitive populist pieces of legislation meant to excite the base. I believe that all the Bush tax cuts should be repealed once the economy heals. I don't believe that austerity should happen now during this weak economy. I do believe that government does play a role in Safety Nets and Health care, just not what is being proposed or passed by today's lawmakers.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Magox

[Juror#8]

It's not that it did nothing for me. It did nothing it was supposed to do. For every dollar spent putting a person to work on Route 7 there's another ten dollars spent on moronic stuff like grape genetics and Solyndra. And this is why your reasoning, for what it is worth, is so flawed. As has been discussed here before, the problem with the Stimulus bill was not that it was wrong in theory, but wrong in execution. It was Stage 1 Amateur Hour at the WH, which fell for the age-old mistake of thinking that randomly throwing money at a problem will make the problem go away.

 

A trillion dollars later, and all you've got to show for it are a handful of people who got some temporary work on Route 7, a bankrupt solar panel company, John Murtha's airport and unemployment STILL over 9%.

 

This was the direct result of the Democrats owning the WH and both houses. Act first while they have a majority, and think later. Same with Obamacare. Do you think Pelosi saying "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" was a slip of the tongue? No, it was pure honesty. "We don't know what we're doing, but at least we're doing something, so stand by and we'll let you know if we're doing the right thing."

 

But hey...use "bicameralism" again because it makes you sound so smart.

 

1. You had me thinking politically until the last line...and then I thought "damn, another individual incapable of having a dispassionate debate."

 

But since you mentioned that - how can you hear how I sound? Can you hear the words that I typed. I "mentioned," I "typed," I "referenced." You [presumably] "read" (or it was read to you if you were busy or are illiterate [which I'm not suggesting btw]) Was I audible to you, though? Are you autistic?

 

Or are you suggesting that IF I use "bicameralism" in my daily conversations (which you can't hear unless I know you or we decide to have a phone conversation, or you're in close proximity, or some other serendipitous moment) you presume that I would "sound" smart?

 

If so, ok. If not, then you're not presenting yourself well - or, to use your characterization, you're not "sounding smart."

 

J/K

 

2. On to sunny point number 2 (or "number 1" based on your enumeration above), THE STIMULUS.

 

Short answer: You're right. It was lacking. It was a lot of things. But it was helpful to many. Was it a waste of money? Eh, debateable. Have you ever seen legislation that wasn't omnibus or replete with "riders." It sucks. All legislation sucks. I deal with the legislative process all day. It's crap. It's all about getting things through and constituent representation. You think that that is a "liberal" thing? Hmph.

 

Here is the sincerity question though: if I point to you legislation that Bush proposed or that was co-sponsored by Republicans in Congress, some of whom are seeking the GOP's approval to be there national candidate, that contains all the moronic, cow-vagina--genetic-grape nuts-urine sample-manually-masturbating-caged-gerbil-fertility study financial subsidy stuff, will you discontinue voting Republican? Will you feel the same about them? Will they be moronic?

 

Or will you just mention that they were simply "acting like democrats"? RINOs, in fact.

[3rdnlng]

1. You had me thinking politically until the last line...and then I thought "damn, another individual incapable of having a dispassionate debate."

 

But since you mentioned that - how can you hear how I sound? Can you hear the words that I typed. I "mentioned," I "typed," I "referenced." You [presumably] "read" (or it was read to you if you were busy or are illiterate [which I'm not suggesting btw]) Was I audible to you, though? Are you autistic?

 

Or are you suggesting that IF I use "bicameralism" in my daily conversations (which you can't hear unless I know you or we decide to have a phone conversation, or you're in close proximity, or some other serendipitous moment) you presume that I would "sound" smart?

 

If so, ok. If not, then you're not presenting yourself well - or, to use your characterization, you're not "sounding smart."

 

J/K

 

2. On to sunny point number 2 (or "number 1" based on your enumeration above), THE STIMULUS.

 

Short answer: You're right. It was lacking. It was a lot of things. But it was helpful to many. Was it a waste of money? Eh, debateable. Have you ever seen legislation that wasn't omnibus or replete with "riders." It sucks. All legislation sucks. I deal with the legislative process all day. It's crap. It's all about getting things through and constituent representation. You think that that is a "liberal" thing? Hmph.

 

Here is the sincerity question though: if I point to you legislation that Bush proposed or that was co-sponsored by Republicans in Congress, some of whom are seeking the GOP's approval to be there national candidate, that contains all the moronic, cow-vagina--genetic-grape nuts-urine sample-manually-masturbating-caged-gerbil-fertility study financial subsidy stuff, will you discontinue voting Republican? Will you feel the same about them? Will they be moronic?

 

Or will you just mention that they were simply "acting like democrats"? RINOs, in fact.

 

Gheeeesh---and I thought you were just using slang for a Backtrian Camel.

 

Anyway, I'm going to assume you are truly new to the board. The intercourse you have had with Magox and LA is pretty standard as far as tone goes here. Busting balls and getting them busted for you is a prerequisite for gaining any gravitas on PPP. I've heard seen read a poster on the Stadium Wall swear that they would never come here due to the rough and tumble nature. (I think he was actually a closet Patriot* fan)Back up your schit with more good schit and you won't be called an idiot and !@#$ing moron too often. Oh, and anything containing "mudgeon" belongs to me.

[Juror#8]

Gheeeesh---and I thought you were just using slang for a Backtrian Camel.

 

Anyway, I'm going to assume you are truly new to the board. The intercourse you have had with Magox and LA is pretty standard as far as tone goes here. Busting balls and getting them busted for you is a prerequisite for gaining any gravitas on PPP. I've heard seen read a poster on the Stadium Wall swear that they would never come here due to the rough and tumble nature. (I think he was actually a closet Patriot* fan)Back up your schit with more good schit and you won't be called an idiot and !@#$ing moron too often. Oh, and anything containing "mudgeon" belongs to me.

 

I'm not going anywhere friend. I like the name-calling. I told ya, I think it's cute.

[IDBillzFan]

2. On to sunny point number 2 (or "number 1" based on your enumeration above), THE STIMULUS.

 

Short answer: You're right. It was lacking. It was a lot of things. But it was helpful to many. Was it a waste of money? Eh, debateable.

It's not debatable. There was a tremendous amount of waste in the stimulus, and suggesting that throwing a trillion dollars at a problem isn't waste simply because it did a couple of good things is like spending $200 on a steak dinner that had a burned ribeye and maggot-infested potato, and suggesting it wasn't really a waste because the garnish was pretty.

 

Have you ever seen legislation that wasn't omnibus or replete with "riders." It sucks. All legislation sucks. I deal with the legislative process all day. It's crap. It's all about getting things through and constituent representation. You think that that is a "liberal" thing? Hmph.

Previous bad behavior does not justify current bad behavior.

 

Here is the sincerity question though: if I point to you legislation that Bush proposed or that was co-sponsored by Republicans in Congress, some of whom are seeking the GOP's approval to be there national candidate, that contains all the moronic, cow-vagina--genetic-grape nuts-urine sample-manually-masturbating-caged-gerbil-fertility study financial subsidy stuff, will you discontinue voting Republican? Will you feel the same about them? Will they be moronic?

 

Or will you just mention that they were simply "acting like democrats"? RINOs, in fact.

I've spent the better part of the last two years coming to terms with my political leanings. While spending time talking about the past (again, to justify bad current behavior) seems to be a fun liberal pasttime, the reality is that I can not personally atone for how I conducted my political past beyond ensuring I don't make the same mistakes moving forward. The current administration did not invent government waste. It just took it to a new level which, many would argue, is the reason so many people are yelling about cutting spending.

 

The problem I face right now is that, like a majority of Americans, I just need to get Obama out of the WH as he is useless, irresponsible, and the exact opposite of everything he promised to be. Unfortunately, the "anyone but Obama" cry is no different than the "anyone but Bush" cry that landed us this idiot in the WH. It can't be "anyone but Obama," but that's where we're headed. We'll have to accept a Mitt Romney presidency simply because it would be better than Obama (although, a mop could stake the same claim). And when Romney starts pissing away money we don't have, I can assure you I will be here to yell about it as well.

Edited October 13, 2011 by LABillzFan

[Juror#8]

Like I said, you can keep saying that they aren't worried about Mitt until you are blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that they are.

 

And if you think I'm abrasive, then you haven't... oh NM

 

And you can't count on your hand the amount of name calling that you believe I have committed? What, were you in some sort of injury where you lost most of your fingers?

 

let's play your game for a second.

 

ill-informed: lacking adequate or proper knowledge or information, as in one particular subject or in a variety of subjects:

 

That's not name calling that is an accurate description or characterization of your knowledge of the oil markets.

 

And when I said your political awareness is sorely lacking. again, not name calling, but a fair observation IF you believed that Obama would not lose independents against a moderate candidate.

 

When I said "you have no clue in how the oil markets works", is that name calling? Nope.

 

Now on to the oil markets:

 

 

 

You see, when you say stuff like this, it once again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of how markets work. You seem to believe that the more speculators there are in a market, the higher the prices, or at least that's what you are inferring, because after all we are speaking about your belief that speculators are directly attributed to today's higher prices.

 

Now try to wrap your head around this, you see, speculators take both sides of the markets, they go short and they go long based on MARKET FUNDAMENTALS. Sometimes, when markets are overly bearish, prices tend to overshoot to the downside, and the same goes for the upside.

 

In regards to why did the price of oil shoot to the up over $25 in a day? Well, since I was in the markets and I remember that day very clearly its quite simple. But before I get to that day, the demand for Oil coming from China was exploding, you may remember that was the year of the Chinese Olympics, and China was buying so much oil that year in the run-up to their monumental event, that there were shortages of oil tankers and oil was INDEED in short supply, oil demand for a 2 month time period was in deficit by close to 2M barrels a day. The numbers you cite are skewed because the 4thQ demand of oil 2007 was higher than the 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 for one simple reason. Hmmm, lets try to figure out what that reason could be. I know you can do it. Think back.

 

Oh yeah! That's right, The financial meltdown. So lets take a look at the time periods and prices to see if those prices were justified based on Demand.

 

Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2007 was higher than in 2008, that is true and the price was $95 a barrel

 

Avg 4thQ demand of oil in 2008 was lower than in 2007 and the price was $42 a barrel

 

Wow! How could demand in 4thQ of 2007 be higher than the demand of oil in the 4thQ of 2008 AND the prices were higher?? that isn't justified. Wait, What??

 

 

So again, you were trying to make the point that prices were too high based on demand being higher in 2007 than in 2008.. Yet the price of oil wasn't even 50% of the price of 2007. Thanks for making my point though, which is that sometimes when extreme bearishness sets in, prices overshoot to the downside as well. But seriously, I'm glad you brought up that stat

 

Oh and the $25 price movement in a single day. Well for an ill-informed observer such as yourself, it is quite reasonable to question how we could possibly see a day like that one. Once again, the answer is quite simple. You see, when you have extreme bearishness setting in, a lot of SPECULATORS begin to place their bearish bets. The price of oil was beginning to come down hard... so when you have "news" that is seen as potentially bullish, all those SPECULATORS cover their shorts, and you have a massive short covering rally, and of course you get some SPECULATORS that look to try to take advantage of that very very short-term movement. Hence the explosive 1 day movement. You see we call these things "Corrections". Get it? Correction. Meaning, correcting itself to a more fundamentally accepted price. Amazing how those things work.

 

You haven't been here long enough to know that I have made some of these explanations before.

 

I used the word "trajectory" for a reason. Short-term price movements are exactly that, short-term. So where do you believe the price of oil was after September 21st 2008, one week later? 2 weeks later? 3 weeks later?

 

I have it right here for you

 

http://www.nyse.tv/crude-oil-price-history.htm

 

September 26, 2008 $106.89

October 3, 2008 $93.88

October 10, 2008 $77.70

 

 

Did you know, that the one day anomaly of that price spike never affected prices at the pump? Yep it didn't.

 

Also, it appears that prices weren't justified. After the Chinese olympics, Demand declined sharply, because the Chinese dramatically cut off their purchases of oil, prices began to decline, the world was slowing down due to the financial crisis and subsequently prices of oil did as well.

 

Another point about the Chinese, I remember, because I was trading oil at the time, the Chinese were bidding for oil from suppliers that we normally purchased from, and there were shipments that were diverted from our destination over to China because of their insatiable appetite for oil they had leading into the Olympics.

 

 

 

But, keep looking for the boogie men, because well, that's what you like to do.

 

 

Oh and btw, just so we don't waste each others time any further, I was against the Repeal of GS. I am for sensible regulations, not punitive populist pieces of legislation meant to excite the base. I believe that all the Bush tax cuts should be repealed once the economy heals. I don't believe that austerity should happen now during this weak economy. I do believe that government does play a role in Safety Nets and Health care, just not what is being proposed or passed by today's lawmakers.

 

1. Don't get caught up in the "abrasive" characterization. I told you, I enjoy it. Dispassionate people end up being the best to debate with.

 

2. Characterizing someone a certain way, then substantiating your characterization with your own opinion, effectively transitions what could be objective fact, into a perjorative. Your "ill-informed" and "sorely lacking" commentary is then followed by an opinion of why you think that is the case. You're claims are meritless. Baseless. Without standing. But they're cute.

 

Factually, you are wrong about the WH's stance on Mitt Romney. You can say otherwise until you're [insert color here] in the face. You're simply incorrect. And if I didn't know first hand that you're incorrect (which I do), what you use to substantiate your thesis demonstrates even further that you're incorrect. I've stated twice now that the polls, and "independent this, independent that," et cetera language that you use as "subtantiation" is problematic...and why. You respond with another declarative and then an ad hominem (please see the discussion above as to why your statements are classified that way). Therefore:

 

Your entire post is a red herring and argumentum ad populum. You haven't addressed my point in either of my previous posts concerning the fallacy in your reasoning.

 

Your posts follow this formula, described presently:

 

Pronoun, declarative statment (no support), declarative statement (no support), ad hominem, logical fallacy, conclusion.

 

Then you anxiously await a cogent response to it.

 

And I'm still watching you behave in this way.

 

 

2. Thank you for providing your opinion by answering my two questions. Unfortunately, you ignored the entire rest of that post.

I read your post twice, and though I respect the points that you raise and your opinion on the phenomena, I don't agree with you and I'll renew my points. Res ipsa loquitur.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Juror#8

[OCinBuffalo]

Still waiting for my response juror8. You are new here, so perhaps I can help you out:

 

I don't want to get into a debate with Magox over the methods of markets, as that's what he does, and you shouldn't either. We can talk about results, but you should stay away from the inner workings.

Same thing goes for arguing with a business owner, LABillz, over what constitutes a sound budget. (The same goes for a lot of us. I suggest you stop telling us to unknow what we know, and do, every day.)

You sure as hell don't want to argue with DC_Tom about science or history(or in Tom's mind, anything )

Actually, the best rule is stay away from history in general unless you really know it = "have read primary sources". Fair warning. Post some dopey conclusion based on some non-historian who's not even good enough to be called a "revisionist" saying, for example, that Lincoln would be a Democrat today, and you will be destroyed.

Same rule for economics. We have highly educated, both didactically and practically, people here. Slip up once and you will be hearing it for weeks, for the exact reason that we like to antagonize people because we can. This is the high school locker room, and you are the new kid.

 

Having said that, my response above is playing on your home field: Politics. This is something you say you know. So, let's hear it.

Edited October 13, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[3rdnlng]

I'm not going anywhere friend. I like the name-calling. I told ya, I think it's cute.

 

 

"Cute" is not a word normally used here. If you want "cute" try this:

 

http://pixyland.org/peterpan/

[Juror#8]

It's not debatable. There was a tremendous amount of waste in the stimulus, and suggesting that throwing a trillion dollars at a problem isn't waste simply because it did a couple of good things is like spending $200 on a steak dinner that had a burned ribeye and maggot-infested potato, and suggesting it wasn't really a waste because the garnish was pretty.

 

 

Previous bad behavior does not justify current bad behavior.

 

 

I've spent the better part of the last two years coming to terms with my political leanings. While spending time talking about the past (again, to justify bad current behavior) seems to be a fun liberal pasttime, the reality is that I can not personally atone for how I conducted my political past beyond ensuring I don't make the same mistakes moving forward. The current administration did not invent government waste. It just took it to a new level which, many would argue, is the reason so many people are yelling about cutting spending.

 

The problem I face right now is that, like a majority of Americans, I just need to get Obama out of the WH as he is useless, irresponsible, and the exact opposite of everything he promised to be. Unfortunately, the "anyone but Obama" cry is no different than the "anyone but Bush" cry that landed us this idiot in the WH. It can't be "anyone but Obama," but that's where we're headed. We'll have to accept a Mitt Romney presidency simply because it would be better than Obama (although, a mop could stake the same claim). And when Romney starts pissing away money we don't have, I can assure you I will be here to yell about it as well.

 

Much respect for your even-handedness.

 

I didn't vote for the current administration. I found Ron Paul to be refreshing and politically sensible so that's where my support was. Even did the "write-in" thing because I thought McCain was unsatisfactory as well.

 

This year, not so sure. My brother is a speech-writer (therefore between him and his colleagues, I have a nice ear to what's going on in the WH politically - but of course that's no match for a Quinnipiac poll and declarative statements - ). I'm an LA on the Hill. My perspective has changed for those reasons...but I still call a spade a spade. I'm definitely more independent that I once was. I used to look at things very matter-of-factly and without contours or nuance (like some here).

 

I've realized that I was missing things as a result. So I'll debate the other side and debate for sides that I traditionally don't agree with - because I'm trying to appreciate nuance.

 

For what it's worth.

 

"Cute" is not a word normally used here. If you want "cute" try this:

 

http://pixyland.org/peterpan/

 

Not going to "the link."

 

I've lurked here for three years. I remember Scooby's BMW, the board crash, NeverGiveUp coming and going, Tim Graham and that fiasco, Owen Schmitt needing to be the choice in the second or third round because he would be the best thing since Carwell Gardner, etc.

 

I also have seen how people have substituted that link as legitimate links to news reports, stats and info, etc.

 

I'm the newbie...but I did my reconnaissance.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Juror#8