On Jun 30, 12:37 am, gringo <gri...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Monkey Clumps wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 10:39 am, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> "Monkey Clumps" <spacebrai...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>>news:671eda19-0d12-42b0-8762-13a9aefe5bc2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>> On Jun 26, 3:58 pm, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
> >>> companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
> >>> had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
> >>> putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
> >>> are very good at their business and their business is finding oil
and
> >>> extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
> >>> domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored
and
> >>> put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the
obfuscation
> >>> and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
> >>> against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact
and
> >>> face the American public.
>
> >> Snip....
>
> >> Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil
companies
> >> are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource.
One we
> >> apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
> >> products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
> >> altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
> >> absurd.
>
> > So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
> > nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
> > The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
> > process of running their industry into the ground through gross
> > incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
> > than government companies.
>
> that is their rant. Not true.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks the Soviets won the cold
war.
>
> >> Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for
more oil
> >> to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in
their
> >> interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are
doing. It's
> >> economics 101.
>
> > Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
> > market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
> > system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
> > sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
> > all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
> > suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
>
> You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
> there is a finite demand.
This shows you have no understanding of supply and demand. Demand is
not finite and fixed. If price drops demand will increase (people
drive more, fly more, buy bigger less fuel efficient cars etc.)
> If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
> were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
> thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
> would go down down down.
Well yes and most people expect that prices will eventually go down,
but probably not to any level close to what it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, oil companies have a huge incentive to bring more oil to
market right now. They want to sell with the price high.
>
> In a related aside, a bevy of economists re****ted on CSPAN the other day
> that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
> clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
> rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
>
Yeah lots of people have been complaining that the Fed has not
sup****ted the dollar. Do you have any more irrelevant facts to add?
> >> Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
> >> is in doing the opposite?
>
> > Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
>
> You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
> world economics is light years beyond yours.
Its pretty clear that you are in no position to judge. You sound at
least as clueless as Bob.
> >> Exxon made more money last year that any
> >> cor****ation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that?
"Oil
> >> companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
>
> > Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
> > High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
> > much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
>
> Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
> and the other pirates are already meeting the demand.
Demand varies with the price point you clod.
> Dumping any more
> oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
No **** sherlock. It is still in each oil company's best interest to
bring as much of their product to market now to take advantage of the
high prices. Will that increase supply and eventually lower prices?
Yes, thats how markets work you dolt. But, individual companies
aren't going to hold back to keep prices high.
> > Exxon doesn't control oil
> > prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
> > have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
> > want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
> > years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
> > be $50.
>
> pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
> international, they are cor****ate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
> their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
> If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
> price--and profits--would drop.
Your idea of demand as a fixed number shows your lack of understanding
of basic economic concepts. Demand moves with price. Nevertheless, you
are correct that as supply increases, prices will tend to drop. What
you don't comprehend is that individual players will always act in
*their* best interest, which is to sell as much as possible with
prices high. How do you think oil prices dropped below $20 in the
90s? Oil producers were going bust, do you think they wanted that to
happen? If the whole industry colludes to inflate prices as you
propose, how did that ever happen?
The reason prices are high now is that the oil simply is not available
to put on the market. That is why new sources must be opened up or
this situation will just keep getting worse. The fact that the US
government prohibits offshore drilling for a large ****tion of our
coast and the frozen wasteland known as ANWR is asinine. We are now
reaping the rewards of that foolish policy. Idiots like you blame the
oil companies. The real blame goes to politicians and environmental
lobbyists who block drilling.
>
> >> Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's.
Maybe
> >> it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business
and allow
> >> more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our
NATIONAL
> >> resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon.
Maybe its
> >> time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
>
> > Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
> > efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
> > socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
> > innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
>
> I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
> (universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
> advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
> (NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
> the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
> pharmaceutical companies.
And this is relevant how?
|
