Its (still) the economy, stupid.

[Plano Vol]

depends who you listen to. some say there isn't much, others say it is as much as the sauidi's reserve. either way it certainly will have SOME effect. domestic oil because of balance of payments is worth twice what foreign oil is when it comes to the crude price. and considering there hasn't been a single US based oil spill from deep water drilling I think we can take the chance.

I certainly agree with the balance of payments angle and I think the extraction methods used in the States would be state of the art.

I don't like dropping $80 to fill my tank but I believe the high prices force change in consumption habits that will a greater impact on the supply/demand thing but we need to improve infrastructure.

I read today where your dear ol' BART was removing seats to allow more standing room.

 

[droski]

just the fact that SUV sales are down 50% tell you people are changing their consumption. the fact that the oil price continues to go up despite plenty of supply and declining demand tells me that were in an oil bubble. all we need is someone to pop it and opening up domestic drilling could do just that.

 

[KB5252]

just the fact that SUV sales are down 50% tell you people are changing their consumption. the fact that the oil price continues to go up despite plenty of supply and declining demand tells me that were in an oil bubble. all we need is someone to pop it and opening up domestic drilling could do just that.

our demand may be dropping but doesn't the added demand from India and China more than make up for that?

 

[BigPapaVol]

our demand may be dropping but doesn't the added demand from India and China more than make up for that?

no. their use has been leveling off as well. the demand does not justify current pricing, meaning droski is on the money.

The bubble is being driven by the massive inflow of dollars chasing contracts.

 

[joevol320]

i have a question. the Democrats say that if we drill our own oil, it will not be enough to bring down prices.

why then did they vote to use our emergency oil reserves? if drilling for our own oil can't bring it down, then how will a relatively small strategic reserve bring it down.

sounds like they're talking out both sides of the their as_, i mean mouths.

 

[joevol320]

our demand may be dropping but doesn't the added demand from India and China more than make up for that?

i read in a new article that AAA estimated that Americans drove about 40 billion less miles this year. i can't remember the exact amount but it was staggering. yet, gas hasn't gone down any.

 

[lawgator1]

In a capitalist economy you can't argue whether it's justified. Maybe in your very French thinking you can justify a mere 10% return for the oil drilling risk and all of the political risk, but in a capitalist system, that return is meager and held there artificially by gov't regulation. There is no real argument as to whether they can charge for their products. There is a debate about socializing the industry and it's a ridiculous IMO, but about market driven entrepreneurial profit there is no discussion to be had.

if you want oil to go to $200 a barrel implement a profit windfall tax.

I am not saying they aren't entitled to make a profit and I'm not saying that the tax should be sufficient to cripple them or cause prices to move higher simply by virtue of the amount of the tax.

But, let's say an individual oil corporation's profit margin was the same, and hypothetically at 10 %, over the last five years. Let's say that the actual dollar amount of profit went from $10 billion in first quarter of 2003 to $40 billion in first quarter of 2008 and that it was based on the fact that their profit dollar amount was magnified by the increase in the raw product they buy, transport, and then refine here.

If they paid a windfall tax of just 10 percent of that ($ 4 billion), they'd still have had their raw dollar profit go from $10 billion to $36 billion. In the meantime, if that was done across the board for all of Big Oil, the U.S. Treasury would have had the stimulus package paid for and perhaps some dollars could be bought back to boost the dollar's value in the exchange markets.

If one of the candidates proposed something along those lines, I think the outcry from the free market people and the Big Oil spokespeople would be absolutely overwhelmed by the tidal wave of support from the millions of us who are paying for those profits every day.

I know and understand your arguments against it, at least in basic terms. But one of the reasons that Obama is so popular is that the index of suspicion out there in real every day America is that the game has been rigged for awhile, that the Chaneys and Bushs -- who are both personally extremely wealthy because of their ties to this industry -- helped out in the shennanigans, and the biggest mistake that the Republicans could ever make is trying to shift blame from the companies making unheard of profits to the environmentalists.

Like it or not, that's the perception.

 

[KB5252]

no. their use has been leveling off as well. the demand does not justify current pricing, meaning droski is on the money.

The bubble is being driven by the massive inflow of dollars chasing contracts.

Thanks for the info and possible good news if and when it does burst.

 

[MG1968]

I am not saying they aren't entitled to make a profit and I'm not saying that the tax should be sufficient to cripple them or cause prices to move higher simply by virtue of the amount of the tax.

But, let's say an individual oil corporation's profit margin was the same, and hypothetically at 10 %, over the last five years. Let's say that the actual dollar amount of profit went from $10 billion in first quarter of 2003 to $40 billion in first quarter of 2008 and that it was based on the fact that their profit dollar amount was magnified by the increase in the raw product they buy, transport, and then refine here.

If they paid a windfall tax of just 10 percent of that ($ 4 billion), they'd still have had their raw dollar profit go from $10 billion to $36 billion. In the meantime, if that was done across the board for all of Big Oil, the U.S. Treasury would have had the stimulus package paid for and perhaps some dollars could be bought back to boost the dollar's value in the exchange markets.

If one of the candidates proposed something along those lines, I think the outcry from the free market people and the Big Oil spokespeople would be absolutely overwhelmed by the tidal wave of support from the millions of us who are paying for those profits every day.

I know and understand your arguments against it, at least in basic terms. But one of the reasons that Obama is so popular is that the index of suspicion out there in real every day America is that the game has been rigged for awhile, that the Chaneys and Bushs -- who are both personally extremely wealthy because of their ties to this industry -- helped out in the shennanigans, and the biggest mistake that the Republicans could ever make is trying to shift blame from the companies making unheard of profits to the environmentalists.

Like it or not, that's the perception.

what about the fact that Exxon already pays more taxes in 1 year (30 billion) than over 50% of all tax payers (27 billion)?

BMI Media Myth Crude Coverage: Media ignore OPEC’s control of oil market when covering America’s pain at the pump.

 

[volsforever27]

The biggest mistake the R's could make is to NOT blame the enviromentalists. As I've stated before, Obama and the rest are claiming there would be no impact on prices for 5 years if we drilled now. Guess what? When a bill was introduced to all new drilling a few years ago, guess who blocked it?

And also on LG's other point, we should tax oil companies due to perception?

 

[BigPapaVol]

If one of the candidates proposed something along those lines, I think the outcry from the free market people and the Big Oil spokespeople would be absolutely overwhelmed by the tidal wave of support from the millions of us who are paying for those profits every day.

What if one of the candidates passed a human methane gas tax and charged per emission or by volume. We could create some value per slip or per litre that generated the exact same amount of money to be pissed away by our incredibly inefficient and effectively freaking unionized gov't. It would have basically the same impact on the on the price that you and I pay at the pump and the gov't would have more of our money instead of someone actually earning it.

I've told you this many times, but if you'd simply look into the profit numbers being spouted by the media you would understand how much of the profit is based upon inventory valuations and you might actually look at it a bit differently.

I know and understand your arguments against it, at least in basic terms. But one of the reasons that Obama is so popular is that the index of suspicion out there in real every day America is that the game has been rigged for awhile, that the Chaneys and Bushs -- who are both personally extremely wealthy because of their ties to this industry -- helped out in the shennanigans, and the biggest mistake that the Republicans could ever make is trying to shift blame from the companies making unheard of profits to the environmentalists.

the italicized portion is just another of your facts that just won't stand up to any scrutiny.

Like it or not, that's the perception.

The perception might be that oil companies are gouging and that's their problem to deal with from a corporate commo standpoint, but really aren't in the public debate about it and it is certainly not providing Obama with anything. A rough economy is probably swaying voters, but the perception of shenanigans is not.

 

[lawgator1]

The perception might be that oil companies are gouging and that's their problem to deal with from a corporate commo standpoint, but really aren't in the public debate about it and it is certainly not providing Obama with anything. A rough economy is probably swaying voters, but the perception of shenanigans is not.

Then you aren't talking to the people I'm talking to. I frequently hear grousing that the Bush connection to the Saudi ruling family in particular is making people suspicious. And you can be sure that the Dems are going to trot out their previous (unsuccessful) efforts to get at the list of people who came to the WH for the secret energy meetings held by Chaney.

 

[volinbham]

I am not saying they aren't entitled to make a profit and I'm not saying that the tax should be sufficient to cripple them or cause prices to move higher simply by virtue of the amount of the tax.

But, let's say an individual oil corporation's profit margin was the same, and hypothetically at 10 %, over the last five years. Let's say that the actual dollar amount of profit went from $10 billion in first quarter of 2003 to $40 billion in first quarter of 2008 and that it was based on the fact that their profit dollar amount was magnified by the increase in the raw product they buy, transport, and then refine here.

If they paid a windfall tax of just 10 percent of that ($ 4 billion), they'd still have had their raw dollar profit go from $10 billion to $36 billion. In the meantime, if that was done across the board for all of Big Oil, the U.S. Treasury would have had the stimulus package paid for and perhaps some dollars could be bought back to boost the dollar's value in the exchange markets.

Are you forgetting that profits go to the owners of the company? Those owners are you and me pal (and millions of others via direct stock, mutual funds and pension funds). You aren't taking money from Exxon - you are taking money from millions of owners.

If one of the candidates proposed something along those lines, I think the outcry from the free market people and the Big Oil spokespeople would be absolutely overwhelmed by the tidal wave of support from the millions of us who are paying for those profits every day.

I know and understand your arguments against it, at least in basic terms. But one of the reasons that Obama is so popular is that the index of suspicion out there in real every day America is that the game has been rigged for awhile, that the Chaneys and Bushs -- who are both personally extremely wealthy because of their ties to this industry -- helped out in the shennanigans, and the biggest mistake that the Republicans could ever make is trying to shift blame from the companies making unheard of profits to the environmentalists.

I thought you were seeking objective evaluation and not intellectual dishonesty. Please back up with facts how Bush/Cheney manipulated events to create record profits for oil companies. This is pure spin.

Like it or not, that's the perception.

A windfall profit tax; especially one that is simply redistributed via some stimulus package is a terrible idea and will do nothing to help lower energy prices.

 

[MG1968]

Then you aren't talking to the people I'm talking to. I frequently hear grousing that the Bush connection to the Saudi ruling family in particular is making people suspicious. And you can be sure that the Dems are going to trot out their previous (unsuccessful) efforts to get at the list of people who came to the WH for the secret energy meetings held by Chaney.

Bush's (and Cheney's) tax returns are public record, if there's any evidence you have of malfeasance, bring it forward. Citing uninformed gossip about grand conspiracies doesn't help your case.

 

[droski]

please link me the proof that cheney or bush owns a single oil stock because they both sold em a LONG time before oil got over $50. thanks much.

 

[MG1968]

easy droski, you shouldn't let your facts impede their emotional outbursts.

 

[droski]

strange how during bush sr's reign that oil was at $25 a barrell. i guess he didn't want to help out his saudi buddies like GW. :whistling:

 

[volsforever27]

You have to love when pilitics turns into conspiracy theories.

 

[lawgator1]

You are attacking me like I'm the one saying it. I really don't know one way or the other. I am reporting what people are talking about around the proverbial water cooler.

 

[volinbham]

You are attacking me like I'm the one saying it. I really don't know one way or the other. I am reporting what people are talking about around the proverbial water cooler.

Your commentary certainly implies you believe it and use it to justify the WFPT.

would be absolutely overwhelmed by the tidal wave of support from the millions of us who are paying for those profits every day

But one of the reasons that Obama is so popular is that the index of suspicion out there in real every day America is that the game has been rigged for awhile, that the Chaneys and Bushs -- who are both personally extremely wealthy because of their ties to this industry -- helped out in the shennanigans,

Are you part of real every day America or are the rumblings of a few around the water cooler a proxy for real every day America.

What's your view?

 

[allvol123]

opcorn:

 

[droski]

You are attacking me like I'm the one saying it. I really don't know one way or the other. I am reporting what people are talking about around the proverbial water cooler.

common sense doesn't let you know one way or the other?

 

[lawgator1]

Your commentary certainly implies you believe it and use it to justify the WFPT.



Are you part of real every day America or are the rumblings of a few around the water cooler a proxy for real every day America.

What's your view?

common sense doesn't let you know one way or the other?

I believe that the current administration is and has been less than enthusiastic about regulating or investigating the markets, the suppliers, or the companies trading and producing in energy. I believe this is likely because of their 1) general philosophy towards conservative government, 2) predeliction towards Big Oil, 3) lack of sensitivity towards the general consumer.

I do not think that there was any sort of "conspiracy," in the sense that anyone did anything ilegal or underhanded. I just think its a difference in philosophy.

And if you are asking, yes, I do think that the oil companies have taken advantage of that laxness. Again, not in any illegal way. But just generally they are enjoying the fruits of having a pro-big business atmosphere.

I am sure they are very worried about someone like Obama becoming president and will contribute as much as they are allowed to in order to defeat him, just as those who would benefit, either personally or economically, by the defeat of McCain will contribute to that. Its the way our system works.

 

[allvol123]

I believe that the current administration is and has been less than enthusiastic about regulating or investigating the markets, the suppliers, or the companies trading and producing in energy. .

Enron people are saying WTF?

 

[volinbham]

And the "shenanigans"?

I believe that the current administration is and has been less than enthusiastic about regulating or investigating the markets, the suppliers, or the companies trading and producing in energy. I believe this is likely because of their 1) general philosophy towards conservative government, 2) predeliction towards Big Oil, 3) lack of sensitivity towards the general consumer.

I'm asking this sincerely but was this different under the previous administration? What actions did they take?

There's a clear implication that oil company profits are up because Bush/Cheney are oil men and they used some shenanigans to benefit big oil to the detriment of the common man - is that your view?