Democrats intent on destroying middle class with $11 gas

[sobmaz]

I get a kick of how stupid people really are.

Go back to the archives of the Senate and House and see who introduced bills that would lead to less reliance on petroleum. Notice who squashed that legislation.

The latest proof is when Bush came in he immediately did away with the CAFE standards (at the automakers bidding). If the Democratic CAFE standards had been imposed, Detroit would already have the fleets of higher economy autos. The U.S. would be importing a minimum of 1 million barrels per day less.

Instead Republicans got their way. No mileage standards, big, fat SUVs that suck up the gas and Detroit in shambles. AND, now, they are successful and blaming Democrats for oil prices!.

I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night knowing this nation has a huge STRATIGIC RESERVE of petroleum to cushion our transition away from that energy source.

Bush doesn’t think 5.00 gasoline is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve that was created…..The Demos don’t think 5.00 gas is enough to dip into the Strategic reserve nature gave us. What’s the difference? Neither will solve our problem, only alternative energies will.

[Arraya]

Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[Arraya]

Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[Arraya]

Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[Arraya]

Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[Arraya]

Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[Arraya]

”

[Arraya]

”

[Arraya]

”

[Arraya]

”

[Arraya]

”

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=arraya]Jfiquette-Your argument it schizophrenic. On one side you are arguing that it is lack of supply that is driving prices i.e. “the liberals” not allowing exploration. On the other side you are arguing that it is all speculative. Ok, so which is it? You can’t just “shotgun” conflicting theories of why oil prices should not be so high. It’s just silly and wreaks of desperation. Desperation of what, I don’t know.

BIG PICTURE

Let’s looks at some fundamentals for a big picture. And the fundamentals are roughly flat production over 4+ years (maybe 1.5 mbpd max more in certain quarters) now versus a near 8 mbpd increase in consumption by China and India. If we subtract out that 1.5 mbpd occasional bump up in production, that means China and India combined are taking 6.5 mbpd away from someone else who was consuming that oil in 2004. And that doesn’t account for increases in consumption elsewhere in the world, which have been documented.

DECLINING NET EXPORTS

On top of the 4 years of flat production we have also seen oil exporting countries demand increase dramatically. What this has caused is less and less oil for oil importing countries. So one could conclude that oil importers are bidding up declining net exports thus at least driving the trend. Net exports are actually down 4% from 2006.

ELASTICITY OF OIL

Elasticity of oil by most studies is measured at 15-20%. This means that for every 1% decline of supply or 1% increase in demand the price will move 15-20%. I would are argue that as forced conservation moves up the food chain it becomes more inelastic due to the fact that the buyers bidding up oil having more buying power.

SPECULATION

I don’t think you can accurately show that as a specific number, and since a large part of the speculation is in shorts I do not think you can even argue clearly what effect speculation is even having in this market.

[/quote]

Read this link and see what you think about speculation and its influence on the price of oil.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=va&aid=8878

Here is another article you might want to read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060504322.html

“Hedge funds and big Wall Street banks are taking advantage of loopholes in federal trading limits to buy massive amounts of oil contracts, according to a growing number of lawmakers and prominent investors, who blame the practice for helping to push oil prices to record highs.”

The reason why oil is easily manipulated is because is market cap is very small relative to say the NYSE or the Treasury market. It doesn’t take much to push oil up or down for that matter. This makes it ideal for speculation.

The backdrop behind this speculation is partly to blame on the perception that America is not going to do anything to develop its own resources.

In speculation perception is everything. The perception that Qualcomm was going to $1000 per share is what drove its price so high. The idea that the Internet was going to make everyone rich is what drove NASDAQ to 5000.

Right now the perception is that Oil can go no where but up so people are piling into the market because it appears to be easy money.

All of this is taking place when oil inventories are higher then they have been in years and where demand for Oil in the US had dropped 4% over the last year.

I suggest that if America were to come out with a program on the same scale and commitment as we did with landing a man on the Moon then we would see over time the speculation diminish because it would change the psychology of the investors. Now they have nothing to lose but with a commitment by America to become energy independent all bets would be off.

This program to become energy independence would take 20 years but had we started Anwar in 1995 we would now be getting a 2 mill barrels a day which would affect the price of oil and more importantly the market psychology.

In summary, speculation is conducted on expectations of easy money and low risk. Change the expectations and you change the degree of speculation. Committing this country to energy independence is the best way to change the expectations and therefore the upward pressure on prices and when the supply becomes to come online we might become exporters and that would greatly help the balance of trade and also the value of the dollar. Not to mention not sending billions to countries who are not our friends.

John

[Author]

Posts