Monkey Clumps wrote:
> 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.
>
>
we the working class sure as hell didn't win anything there. While the
soviets were a threat...able to stir up the poor folk who break their
backs planting crops on mountainsides for wealthy foreign masters,
capitalists had to rein in their greed, and at least give lip service to
taking care of the people who perform all the labor.
>>>> 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.)
>
Of course it is. When one's appetite is sated, one refuses a third
helping of roast beef. Commonsense.
Demand for oil in Europe has dropped precipitously due to the price
increases; China's demand this year was expected to rise 5.5%; it has
risen so far only 7/10 of 1%.
> > 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.
>
nonsense. "Most people" do not expect that prices will eventually go
down. Experts are telling us just the opposite. That we can expect
$200 per barrel before the year ends.
They will lower the prices a bit, however. When the get them well above
what will incite riots around the world and demands to nationalize and
otherwise punish the greedy bastards, they will back off a bit, and stay
there for another decade or so. But it will not drop below, say, $100
per--double what world demand says it ought to be.
>> 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 is the value of our dollar irrelevant to anything we buy in the US?
>
>>>> 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.
>
that you would say that in the face of Bob's proven superior knowledge
demonstrates your own ignorance.
>
>>>> 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.
>
to a minute degree, doofus. your argument implies that if the price
drops a few cents we suddenly
feel empowered to drive the long way to work.
>
>> 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.
>
sonny, to this point I've talked to you as if you are an adult. I've
refuted your points without attacking you personally. Okay, you're not
adult. fine. Let's play in the mud, monkey.
In a true free market, your latter point would be true. The oil market
is not a free open market. It is controlled by 3-4 huge companies (who
undoubtedly own huge blocks of one another's stock) working in tandem
with a few oil-producing countries.
>
>>> 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?
>
Your comments ably demonstrate your unwillingness to consider any fact
that contradicts the conservative Party line. Commonsense is all it
takes to understand what is going on.
OPEC was getting what it wanted, wasn't it. Clinton wouldn't play the
games they wanted, so they kept on our good side till the Saudis
business partners bush and cheney took control.
Do you seriously believe that demand has increased 600% in a decade????
> 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.
>
>
stop ****ning, monkey. I've already related the facts concerning this
drilling. Back up a few posts and reread. Here's a hint: 68,000 leased
and permitted acres in proven oil fields in which to drill.
Idiots like you always lick the privates of those who are slinking up to
your bare backsides.
>>>> 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?
>
>
Plainly relevant to the comment I was referring to, to anyone of average
intelligence.
Repeated once again for your perusal.
>> 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.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
|
