Bush Seemingly Resigned to High Gas Prices

[Simon]

In the short term, probably yes.  But it's too simplistic of an argument, without looking at the long term consequences of having Saddam, Iranian mullahs and senor Chavez sitting on large stockpiles of oil, Simon. 

668708[/snapback]

I don't think anybody is denying that those mitigating factors are having an effect on oil prices. But those mitigating factors also existed prior to us blundering into Iraq before we were ready to do it effectively. And I don't recall those factors driving oil prices this high before we jumped off.

 

What effect would continued stabilization of Kabul have on world supply, demand & price of oil?

Maybe I'm about to sound like a fool as I have little knowledge of global economics, but common sense dictates that speculators are on edge because they are afraid that after our tomfoolery in Iraq, we are liable to do something as idiotic as jumping off into Iran in the near future, regardless of whether it's a sound strategy or not. This would destabilize the region even more and the potential for that kind of scenario (now heightened due to our recent actions) seems like it would be having a palpable effect on pricing.

If we had shown a little more sense and sensibility I think it's fair to say that maybe folks wouldn't be so nervous right now and that oil prices would be commesurately more stable.

Cya

[The Merovingian]

I think that when you compare todays gas prices to prices 10, or 20 years ago they are actually still rather low. If adjusted for actual inflation I believe that the price would be nearly $5.00 per gallon.

 

Actually I believe that the prices at these levels or even in the $3.50/gallon range will have a positive effect in the mid term and long term. As long as there is cheap oil and by extension gasoline, americans will have little or no incentive to either conserve or find alternatives. That is human nature and it is exactly what has been taking place for the last 20 plus years.

 

Both parties are equally to blame for this and for the dems to be making political noise about it just shows where they continue to dwell as a party. The party of fear and loathing in america. No hope only dispair. That is not very insiring at all, but there are many folks who live thier lives in just that state. To them the fear mongering dems are heros.

 

As for the republicans, they have severly lost thier backbone and unfourtunately they appear primed to lose one house of congress in the mid terms. Not that it will make a lick of difference, but bragging rights mean something I guess.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

First let me clarify CTW and AD and any other supply siders or so called free marketers...there is no such thing as true free markets when they are consolidated so far that there is no practicle way for an outsider to enter the market.

 

While I understand that government regulation is an inefficient mechanism for adjusting prices and will eventually cause price distortions, short term interventions can and do work, i.e., threats, investigations and other pressures.

 

Clinton did it in the mid 90s and Gas prices remained stable. Demand is greater because of the Chinese, but refinery capacity is much lower and the number of refiners have decreased.

 

So I don't understand the aversion to using some short term bully pullpit nudging to stabilize the refinery price games and don't tell me it is not happening. Through in some scary news from oil areas and there you have it.

 

Furthermore, from a Political Standpoint, nothing you guys have said counters the Bush Bad arguement that results from him doing nothing.

Just an informed political observation, this will hurt Bush.

 

The GOP will probably argue that the Dems have block Energy policy and the Dems will counter with their usual arguements that GOP policies are give aways to big business that won't help and will hurt the environment.

 

All have some truth, but neither side will see a reason to compromise and thus we are stuck with whims of a few oligopolies.

 

P.S. Just drove through Southwest, CO up to the Northeast section and saw a lot of oil wells, including 4-5 new ones being actively drilled. Not sure to what extent and at what level, but interesting.

[GG]

First let me clarify CTW and AD and any other supply siders or so called free marketers...there is no such thing as true free markets when they are consolidated so far that there is no practicle way for an outsider to enter the market. 

 

669221[/snapback]

 

Let me try another tack, and recap the point sin simple terms since it's obvious that the rational answers haven't gotten through to you.

 

The refinery business sucks, and that's the primary reason that there hasn't been much increase in refinery capacity in 20 years. Refiners have been operating at near 100% capacity for a long time, because they don't want to deal with the headache of investing $$ billions, and then have politicians walk in to regulate rates of return.

 

Just because there's consolidation of operators, doesn't mean that there's a decrease in total refining capacity. (I hope we don't need to do remedial math)

 

Releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve will do squat to the long term sustainability of prices of a friggin COMMODITY. Releasing the strategic oil reserve, however, will do wonders to poll ratings.

 

Strategic oil reserve got its name for a reason, and it ain't to boost political poll rankings.

 

So to recap, your rant isn't that Congressional action is largely responsible for this run up in gasoline prices, but that companies that deal in commodity goods should forgo their profits so that people can continue consuming that commodity at will.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

First let me clarify CTW and AD and any other supply siders or so called free marketers...there is no such thing as true free markets when they are consolidated so far that there is no practicle way for an outsider to enter the market. 

 

While I understand that government regulation is an inefficient mechanism for adjusting prices and will eventually cause price distortions, short term interventions can and do work, i.e., threats, investigations and other pressures.

 

Clinton did it in the mid 90s and Gas prices remained stable.  Demand is greater because of the Chinese, but refinery capacity is much lower and the number of refiners have decreased. 

 

So I don't understand the aversion to using some short term bully pullpit nudging to stabilize the refinery price games and don't tell me it is not happening.  Through in some scary news from oil areas and there you have it.

 

Furthermore, from a Political Standpoint, nothing you guys have said counters the Bush Bad arguement that results from him doing nothing.

Just an informed political observation, this will hurt Bush.

 

The GOP will probably argue that the Dems have block Energy policy and the Dems will counter with their usual arguements that GOP policies are give aways to big business that won't help and will hurt the environment.

 

All have some truth, but neither side will see a reason to compromise and thus we are stuck with whims of a few oligopolies.

 

P.S.  Just drove through Southwest, CO up to the Northeast section and saw a lot of oil wells, including 4-5 new ones being actively drilled.  Not sure to what extent and at what level, but interesting.

669221[/snapback]

 

Of course it'll hurt Bush. That's not the issue - not for me, at least. My question is: should it hurt Bush? Or is it simply that the American public is too damned stupid to realize that gas prices at the pump have less to do with partisan policits than they do supply, demand, and market risk?

 

I simply vote the latter, as I've learned never to underestimate the stupidity of my fellow American citizens, most of whom could tell me all the contestants on this year's American Idol before they could explain how gas actually gets to a gas station.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Let me try another tack, and recap the point sin simple terms since it's obvious that the rational answers haven't gotten through to you.

 

The refinery business sucks, and that's the primary reason that there hasn't been much increase in refinery capacity in 20 years.  Refiners have been operating at near 100% capacity for a long time, because they don't want to deal with the headache of investing $$ billions, and then have politicians walk in to regulate rates of return.

 

Just because there's consolidation of operators, doesn't mean that there's a decrease in total refining capacity.  (I hope we don't need to do remedial math) 

 

Releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve will do squat to the long term sustainability of prices of a friggin COMMODITY.  Releasing the strategic oil reserve, however, will do wonders to poll ratings. 

 

Strategic oil reserve got its name for a reason, and it ain't to boost political poll rankings.

 

So to recap, your rant isn't that Congressional action is largely responsible for this run up in gasoline prices, but that companies that deal in commodity goods should forgo their profits so that people can continue consuming that commodity at will.

669237[/snapback]

 

This subject is getting perilously to crying out for Newbie and a clown analogy...

[chicot]

Yep, in the good old days they killed people off in the hundreds of thousands, instead of this 5 a day stuff. Wimps.

669194[/snapback]

 

Do you actually know the first thing about Iraq except what you hear from the media? I happen to be half-Iraqi, have lived in Iraq and have many relatives there, and I can tell you that the situation, at least in the central region, is absolutely awful.

 

Yes, Saddam was a ruthless tyrant but, before this stupid half-baked invasion, you could live your life. There were rules - stay out of politics, don't criticize the regime and, by and large, you were ok. Now, there are a hundred and one ways you can be killed - you can be killed by a sectarian militia, you can be killed by criminals (kidnapping and extortion is rife), you could be unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity when a roadside bomb goes off (if the bomb doesn't kill you, you have a good chance of being killed when the soldiers open fire in all directions), you can be killed by jihadis, etc...

 

You can argue a good many things about the rights and wrongs of this invasion, but don't tell me it was done for the good of the Iraqis or that things are so much better now because you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[GG]

Maybe I'm about to sound like a fool as I have little knowledge of global economics, but common sense dictates that speculators are on edge because they are afraid that after our tomfoolery in Iraq, we are liable to do something as idiotic as jumping off into Iran in the near future, regardless of whether it's a sound strategy or not.

669196[/snapback]

 

Quit while you're ahead. The $$ in risk that's added to the price of oil these days is due to Nigeria, Iran & Venezuela - ie places where the US military ain't.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Of course it'll hurt Bush.  That's not the issue - not for me, at least.  My question is: should it hurt Bush?  Or is it simply that the American public is too damned stupid to realize that gas prices at the pump have less to do with partisan policits than they do supply, demand, and market risk?

 

I simply vote the latter, as I've learned never to underestimate the stupidity of my fellow American citizens, most of whom could tell me all the contestants on this year's American Idol before they could explain how gas actually gets to a gas station.

669240[/snapback]

Okay then we are not arguing on that point, misunderstood, and I probably should have know better.

 

With all the consolidation in the refinery business, you are saying that capacity has not decreased. I have heard that using suspect maintenance schedules, companies are taking many of them off line and that we are not refining at anywhere near capacity.

 

If I am wrong and I have only heard this through rumors, blogs and Salon.com I stand corrected, but if true that would constitute manipulation of supply and therefore prices.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Let me try another tack, and recap the point sin simple terms since it's obvious that the rational answers haven't gotten through to you.

 

The refinery business sucks, and that's the primary reason that there hasn't been much increase in refinery capacity in 20 years.  Refiners have been operating at near 100% capacity for a long time, because they don't want to deal with the headache of investing $$ billions, and then have politicians walk in to regulate rates of return.

 

Just because there's consolidation of operators, doesn't mean that there's a decrease in total refining capacity.  (I hope we don't need to do remedial math) 

 

Releasing oil from the strategic oil reserve will do squat to the long term sustainability of prices of a friggin COMMODITY.  Releasing the strategic oil reserve, however, will do wonders to poll ratings. 

 

Strategic oil reserve got its name for a reason, and it ain't to boost political poll rankings.

 

So to recap, your rant isn't that Congressional action is largely responsible for this run up in gasoline prices, but that companies that deal in commodity goods should forgo their profits so that people can continue consuming that commodity at will.

669237[/snapback]

 

No my rant is that there are some things the Government can do, counter to your philosophy, we have given away royalties to them and while the refinery business may suck, don't know on that one, the Oil companies themselves that own the refiners are not doing bad right now and yet we are giving away tax dollars to these same oil companies.

 

I am not arguing long term, short term only, your's and CTW's arguements apply.

 

Government only works effectively I believe with short-term interventions. Longterm interventions short of direct cash redistributions such as S.S. are inherently inefficient. Won't argue longterm with you on this one, I agree.

 

But, because of this and Bush's honest, but ill conceived political response to the deal, this price spike is going to hurt him and the GOP just like it hurt Carter.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

With all the consolidation in the refinery business, you are saying that capacity has not decreased.  I have heard that using suspect maintenance schedules, companies are taking many of them off line and that we are not refining at anywhere near capacity.

 

That is something I can't speak intelligently to...but my gut reaction is to doubt it, simpley because "consolidation" in any industry is typically done to achieve economies of scale and increase net production. It may be, in this case, that the oil industry has achieved precisely the opposite...but I want hard proof of it - the actual maintenance schedules, for example, would be a good start.

 

- as an aside, let me just interject and say that this penalty killing by the Sabres is the best I've ever seen. Holy sh--... -

 

And I suspect (again, gut feeling) maintenance is a red herring: why on earth would a company take an asset and intentionally make it non-performing with the intent to increase profits and revenue? Something tells me oil doesn't work that way: maintaining a razor-thin margin between supply and demand in a volume business is a good way to get your face ripped off by unexpected events.

 

If I am wrong and I have only heard this through rumors, blogs and Salon.com I stand corrected, but if true that would constitute manipulation of supply and therefore prices.

669256[/snapback]

 

It would constitute manipulation, IF

1) the rumors of screwy maintenance schedules are true

2) the intent behind them is malicious. THAT is a very specious assumption; I've heard plenty of rumors, too, about oil companies intentionally not using their entire refinery capacity. Every time I've dug deeper into those rumors, they've reduced to the same thing: refinery capacity is either being reconfigured to use an ethanol summer blend rather than MTBE, or refinery capacity is sitting idle because they can't get ethanol fast enough.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

That is something I can't speak intelligently to...but my gut reaction is to doubt it, simpley because "consolidation" in any industry is typically done to achieve economies of scale and increase net production.  It may be, in this case, that the oil industry has achieved precisely the opposite...but I want hard proof of it - the actual maintenance schedules, for example, would be a good start. 

 

- as an aside, let me just interject and say that this penalty killing by the Sabres is the best I've ever seen.  Holy sh--...  -

 

And I suspect (again, gut feeling) maintenance is a red herring: why on earth would a company take an asset and intentionally make it non-performing with the intent to increase profits and revenue?  Something tells me oil doesn't work that way: maintaining a razor-thin margin between supply and demand in a volume business is a good way to get your face ripped off by unexpected events. 

It would constitute manipulation, IF

1) the rumors of screwy maintenance schedules are true

2) the intent behind them is malicious.  THAT is a very specious assumption; I've heard plenty of rumors, too, about oil companies intentionally not using their entire refinery capacity.  Every time I've dug deeper into those rumors, they've reduced to the same thing: refinery capacity is either being reconfigured to use an ethanol summer blend rather than MTBE, or refinery capacity is sitting idle because they can't get ethanol fast enough.

669283[/snapback]

 

4-0 and Esche according to Jannerett has lost it!

[GG]

- as an aside, let me just interject and say that this penalty killing by the Sabres is the best I've ever seen.  Holy sh--...  -

 

669283[/snapback]

 

And this is where my rant comes in. I can't see the friggin game, because I'm still stuck at work

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And this is where my rant comes in.  I can't see the friggin game, because I'm still stuck at work

669298[/snapback]

Yeh but you can listen to it, go to http://www.sabres.com/radio.cfm

and click on the big radio.

[GG]

JJJJJJ PPPPPP DUUUUMOOONT

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

4-0 and Esche according to Jannerett has lost it!

669291[/snapback]

 

I don't want to turn this into a hockey thread...but that was pretty funny, seeing Esche skate out to center ice for no readily apparent reason.

 

Video feed, btw, is http://www.comcast.net/sports/nhl/GenToken...tvXk-bA-myDonBG, for Windows Media Player.

 

Yeah, I know Media Player sucks. It's not my feed, I'm just posting the link.

[Simon]

I'm ahead?

I can't imagine of what

[Ghost of BiB]

I don't want to turn this into a hockey thread...but that was pretty funny, seeing Esche skate out to center ice for no readily apparent reason. 

 

Video feed, btw, is http://www.comcast.net/sports/nhl/GenToken...tvXk-bA-myDonBG, for Windows Media Player.

 

Yeah, I know Media Player sucks.  It's not my feed, I'm just posting the link.

669333[/snapback]

 

I thought your feed was oats, wheat and bannanas?

[GG]

I don't want to turn this into a hockey thread...but that was pretty funny, seeing Esche skate out to center ice for no readily apparent reason. 

 

Video feed, btw, is http://www.comcast.net/sports/nhl/GenToken...tvXk-bA-myDonBG, for Windows Media Player.

 

Yeah, I know Media Player sucks.  It's not my feed, I'm just posting the link.

669333[/snapback]

 

Sweet. I tried to get Jennerette synced to the video, but no go.

 

JP DUUUMOOOONT

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Sweet.  I tried to get Jennerette synced to the video, but no go.

 

JP DUUUMOOOONT

669379[/snapback]

So much better than arguing about stupid political econ. Flyers suck, Flyers suck!