Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obama's failed foreign policyFollow

#52 Apr 08 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pirates, Global warming.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Apr 08 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

You're really struggling in your attempt to validate your unsupportable position.

The graph clearly shows that when you have either a gop congress or president the price of gas generally stays lower than when the Dems control either one or both.



lolollololol lol

lol.

You are comedic gold.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#54 Apr 08 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
varusword75 wrote:
bsphil,

You're really struggling in your attempt to validate your unsupportable position.

The graph clearly shows that when you have either a gop congress or president the price of gas generally stays lower than when the Dems control either one or both.


Honestly Varus? The graph doesn't show that at all, unless one is being incredibly selective about how they measure which party is "in power" at any given time. The lowest price period occurred between the mid-80s to around 2000. During that time period, we had both Republican Presidents with Democratic Congresses, and a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. The two highest periods are in the late 70s and the late 2000s. In one, we had a Dem Congress and Dem president, and in the other we had a GOP president and a Dem congress.

We could try to make the argument that when the Dems control both White House and Congress that gas prices go up, but prices also went up when the GOP controlled those things as well. While the highest point was in 2008 (when Dems controlled congress), it's kinda hard to ignore the general trend leading up that that point.

We could attempt to argue that prices rise when one party controls both the white house and congress and drop when there's divided power, but that's not really supported either (otherwise prices would not have spiked in 2008, then dropped and now spiked again in 2011). The data just don't support making any specific claims about party power in government and gas prices and any attempt to do so is pretty questionable.


A far better argument to make with regard to gas prices and political party policies is to say that we should be increasing our domestic drilling capability in the US, not specifically because of any price effect that may have, but so that when prices do spike we actually will make money instead of sending it into foreign economies. IMO, that's the best argument for increased production capability. And we don't even have to use it all the time. When prices are cheap, there's nothing wrong with buying our oil from foreign sources. But IMO the ability to be able to walk away from a foreign oil producer when we want and say "Nah. We'll just turn on those pumps we've got at home and save ourselves some cash" gives us not only significant economic advantages, but also gives us a bit more foreign policy leverage.

That's the conservative argument with regard to oil and foreign policy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Apr 08 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
***
1,204 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Aripya,

Quote:
Country B was ruled by an Oligarchy masquerading as a democracy until a popular uprising of citizens (mostly) peacefully rebelled, seeking democratic reform.


This is complete mis-characterization of Country B. Allow me to fix this;

Country B was ruled by an Oligarchy masquerading as a democracy that was friendly the US until a staged uprising spured on by radical foregin muslims violently rebelled with the intent of installing a radical islamist state that will be unfriendly to the US.




I can't tell where Varus kicked in.
____________________________
BST SMN RDM PLD WAR MNK BLM THF DRK(72)
#56 Apr 08 2011 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When prices are cheap, there's nothing wrong with buying our oil from foreign sources. But IMO the ability to be able to walk away from a foreign oil producer when we want and say "Nah. We'll just turn on those pumps we've got at home and save ourselves some cash" gives us not only significant economic advantages, but also gives us a bit more foreign policy leverage.

Except that the oil is sold on the global market unless you're advocating market controls to keep US produced oil within the United States and price control it so it's cheaper than they could sell it for on the global market. And we can't produce enough extra to significantly impact prices on a global scale. And that drilling doesn't make "us" any more money aside from the initial permit costs, etc. It makes the oil companies more money. Given previous threads about oil companies using tax loopholes (which you fully support) and subsidies paid to them (which you also fully support), I fail to see how "we" are making more money. The oil companies will make bank though.
Quote:
That's the conservative argument with regard to oil and foreign policy.

I don't doubt that it is.

Edited, Apr 8th 2011 6:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Apr 08 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,796 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I hate to make so many cross references, but take R. Kelly for example. People were wondering why when M.J. got accused for child molestation (and other celebrities with other negative charges) their careers took a dump, but R. Kelly's didn't? The answer is, he was continually making good music and that's what people want him for. So, he can screw up in other areas, but as long as he's getting the job done, that is all that matters.

You can see the same with Chris Brown.


Smiley: rolleyes


Rather you or me specifically like his music is irrelevant. His music was "good" to his fans.

Who doesn't like "Deuces"? Just like one-hit wonders, you only need one song to stay in the game...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#58 Apr 09 2011 at 7:52 AM Rating: Good
******
30,622 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rather you or me specifically like his music is irrelevant.


Whether.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#59 Apr 09 2011 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,796 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rather you or me specifically like his music is irrelevant.


Whether.


Thanks.. Didn't even notice that..

I need to brush up on my grammar as I've been procrastinating my studying for the GRE. It's "now or never much later", but I feel much more relieved as I was told that there is spell check on the test. Not, yet confirmed... Oh, how I hate standardized tests...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#60 Apr 11 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When prices are cheap, there's nothing wrong with buying our oil from foreign sources. But IMO the ability to be able to walk away from a foreign oil producer when we want and say "Nah. We'll just turn on those pumps we've got at home and save ourselves some cash" gives us not only significant economic advantages, but also gives us a bit more foreign policy leverage.

Except that the oil is sold on the global market unless you're advocating market controls to keep US produced oil within the United States and price control it so it's cheaper than they could sell it for on the global market.


That's not the point at all. It's so that when prices are high, more of the cost of oil consumption generates benefits to US owned businesses instead of simply piling into the pockets of foreign owned businesses. That money will flow into domestic business operations, which pay taxes in the US, and which employ people in the US, who spend that money in the US, thus offsetting to some degree a higher price of oil.

Quote:
And we can't produce enough extra to significantly impact prices on a global scale.


Actually, we can. We don't have to in any particular scenario, but the largest impact on global oil prices is speculation. And that speculation often feeds off instability in the ME (and grossly exaggerates the market effects along the way). Oil prices can rise or fall by 20-30 dollars/barrel just on news of a single nation increasing or decreasing its oil supply by a few hundred million barrels a year (or fears of something happening which might affect said supply). If the US has the ability to do the same, we can be one of those nations with the ability to affect those prices rather than one of the nations who is simply subject to them.

Quote:
And that drilling doesn't make "us" any more money aside from the initial permit costs, etc. It makes the oil companies more money.


And that doesn't benefit the rest of us? You think oil company profits just go into a coffee can somewhere on some executive's desk?

Quote:
Given previous threads about oil companies using tax loopholes (which you fully support) and subsidies paid to them (which you also fully support), I fail to see how "we" are making more money. The oil companies will make bank though.


Your failure in this matter doesn't translate into you being right.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 2:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Apr 11 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When prices are cheap, there's nothing wrong with buying our oil from foreign sources. But IMO the ability to be able to walk away from a foreign oil producer when we want and say "Nah. We'll just turn on those pumps we've got at home and save ourselves some cash" gives us not only significant economic advantages, but also gives us a bit more foreign policy leverage.

Except that the oil is sold on the global market unless you're advocating market controls to keep US produced oil within the United States and price control it so it's cheaper than they could sell it for on the global market.


That's not the point at all. It's so that when prices are high, more of the cost of oil consumption generates benefits to US owned businesses instead of simply piling into the pockets of foreign owned businesses. That money will flow into domestic business operations, which pay taxes in the US, and which employ people in the US, who spend that money in the US, thus offsetting to some degree a higher price of oil.
lol, even if you did believe in trickle-down economics, that's only going to START happening after 6-8 years (the time it'll take to find a new site, construct the oil rig, drill for the oil, and start refining it), where it'll take several more years for the marginally increased revenue to outweigh the cost of the initial investment.

And that still doesn't offset the higher price of oil. Even if the amount of oil available on the market increases, as long as people think that the supply is going down or might be going down, the futures market will drive up the price of oil anyway.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#62 Apr 11 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
bsphil wrote:
lol, even if you did believe in trickle-down economics, that's only going to START happening after 6-8 years (the time it'll take to find a new site, construct the oil rig, drill for the oil, and start refining it), where it'll take several more years for the marginally increased revenue to outweigh the cost of the initial investment.



And it'll still take 6-8 years more to do it if we wait another 6-8 years, wont it? How many years of conservatives saying "let's start drilling now so that we're not bent over the next time oil prices rise" before that argument stops having weight?

Quote:
And that still doesn't offset the higher price of oil. Even if the amount of oil available on the market increases, as long as people think that the supply is going down or might be going down, the futures market will drive up the price of oil anyway.


If the US chose to act as a supply balance to global oil production, speculation in that market would level out quite a bit. You get that speculation works because people aren't sure of the actual outcome, right? If everyone knows that any oil production drops are going to be countered by increased US supply, then they wont speculate that oil will rise so fast and far, and by not speculating this, the price wont follow their speculation. We could act as a stabilizing effect on oil if we want. Even absent that, being able to ensure that a larger portion of those increased costs end out back in the US economy instead of elsewhere is a good enough reason to do this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Apr 11 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's not the point at all. It's so that when prices are high, more of the cost of oil consumption generates benefits to US owned businesses instead of simply piling into the pockets of foreign owned businesses. That money will flow into domestic business operations, which pay taxes in the US, and which employ people in the US, who spend that money in the US, thus offsetting to some degree a higher price of oil.

Unless you have some real numbers, I think you're vastly, vastly overinflating the effect of what you describe. And if you think this gives some real foreign policy or economic leverage to say "Yeah well, Shell will just drill here and sell our oil back to us at $140 a barrel (unless China buys it or India or Indonesia or...) and we'll get some minor benefit so HA!", I'm just going to laugh at you. Or your statement that this will "save us some cash".

Quote:
Actually, we can

Actually, we can't. I mean, perhaps going from zero capacity to 100% full-every-spot-being-tapped capacity but any realistic ramp up from out current capacity is not going to make a major impact. And, again, you're vastly overstating the effect of "news". Remember when Bush announced about offshore drilling and it did nothing? Investors aren't stupid -- they know what you're looking at a decade or more between announcing and actual oil entering the market. Shit, in 2008, Saudi Arabia announced increasing capacity and it didn't cause more than a waver and they had the ability to increase global supplies that day. The 2008 rising streak finally broke when an unexpected surplus in natural gas was announced, taking pressure off the energy market as a whole followed by the 2008 economic collapse. Having you been buying into this fairy tale that Bush's announcement caused the market to fall despite it not being followed by Congressional action until nearly October or any actual increased drilling? Is your perception that energy investors are all retarded?

Quote:
And that doesn't benefit the rest of us?

Significantly so? No. Unless you want to show otherwise.

Quote:
Your failure in this matter doesn't translate into you being right.

But you're the one positing this little theory supporting production so it's really up to you to "right", not me. So far you're not producing any real evidence of it. And I doubt you ever will besides saying "it's obvious!" and "I don't have to show you..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Apr 11 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's not the point at all. It's so that when prices are high, more of the cost of oil consumption generates benefits to US owned businesses instead of simply piling into the pockets of foreign owned businesses. That money will flow into domestic business operations, which pay taxes in the US, and which employ people in the US, who spend that money in the US, thus offsetting to some degree a higher price of oil.

Unless you have some real numbers, I think you're vastly, vastly overinflating the effect of what you describe. And if you think this gives some real foreign policy or economic leverage to say "Yeah well, Shell will just drill here and sell our oil back to us at $140 a barrel (unless China buys it or India or Indonesia or...) and we'll get some minor benefit so HA!", I'm just going to laugh at you. Or your statement that this will "save us some cash".


If the choice is between buying that oil from Shell at $140 a barrel or buying it from some foreign oil producer for the same cost, isn't the former better than the latter? Even if our production has absolutely zero impact on global oil prices at all, it's worth doing. Isn't it?

Quote:
Actually, we can't. I mean, perhaps going from zero capacity to 100% full-every-spot-being-tapped capacity but any realistic ramp up from out current capacity is not going to make a major impact.


We can't now, because our own oil needs so far outstrip our oil production that we're at or near production maximums already and are unable to take any advantage of changing oil prices.

Quote:
And, again, you're vastly overstating the effect of "news". Remember when Bush announced about offshore drilling and it did nothing?


No one expected that it would. Not today anyway.

Quote:
Investors aren't stupid -- they know what you're looking at a decade or more between announcing and actual oil entering the market.


I'm not sure what point you're making here. No one is arguing that announcing plans to increase US domestic oil production 8-10 years down the line is going to have an immediate effect on oil prices today (ok, maybe some nutballs are, but no one serious). The argument is that we need to start increasing oil production infrastructure today so that 10 years down the line we're not just as subject to the whims of the oil market as we are today.

I just don't understand at all the argument that there's no sense doing this because it'll take too long to take effect. If we'd increased that oil production infrastructure 10 years ago, wouldn't we have it in place today? It's like arguing that there's no point taking any steps towards the grocery store because it'll take a thousand more to get there and we need groceries right now. Um... That need doesn't change if we don't start walking, right?


Quote:
Quote:
And that doesn't benefit the rest of us?

Significantly so? No. Unless you want to show otherwise.


Huh? Are you seriously arguing that it doesn't benefit us to produce more of the oil we consume in the US than to buy it from foreign sources? Because that's a bit crazy. If you can't grasp that producing something locally is pretty universally viewed as good for said local economy, then I'm not sure how I can help you to understand this. You'll just have to take my word for it that this is true I guess.


Quote:
Quote:
Your failure in this matter doesn't translate into you being right.

But you're the one positing this little theory supporting production so it's really up to you to "right", not me. So far you're not producing any real evidence of it.


What evidence would suffice? You need someone to tell you that increased domestic oil production would benefit the US economically? Isn't the fact that this is true for any good in any market proof enough? Maybe you should take a basic economics class or something?


Quote:
And I doubt you ever will besides saying "it's obvious!" and "I don't have to show you..."


Lol! Covering your bases, aren't you? I love it when you do this btw Joph. You predict the obvious response to your ridiculous argument and then declare victory because you predicted it. Wow! That's so clever...

But heres some guy writing a paper on the subject. As predicted, he concludes that areas where oil is produced locally are not negatively impacted when there are sudden oil price spikes (and in some cases actually benefit). That was like 10 seconds of googling Joph. It's not like the concept of "local production of a good benefits local economy if said good increases in cost" is even remotely difficult to understand much less even refuted seriously.


But I'm sure you'll insist that that's not sufficient evidence I guess. I'm sure you'll play the usual game you play of insisting that nothing I say is "proof", while insisting that if I don't provide proof, I must be wrong. At the end of the day, what you are arguing completely flies in the face of some pretty basic economic realities. It's you who need to make the argument that increased production wont benefit the US. I don't think you can do that though, so you fall back on this incredibly lame approach.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 4:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Apr 11 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,831 posts
And just for giggles, here's another article discussing this issue. Note, how the political appointee repeats the same strawman you are "that increased supply wont affect price", and see how it's refuted with the exact same arguments I'm making:

Quote:
Despite its impact on the price of gasoline, Felmy said there are plenty of other economic benefits to increasing our domestic oil production.

“Even if you forget about the price impact,” he said, “there’s a very good number of reasons why you would produce here. It would generate jobs. It will reduce the trade deficit, and it will improve our economic security and government revenue. So irrespective of the price, there are a lot of very good reasons to do it, and so we continue to emphasize that.”


Arguments against increased domestic oil production only work if they focus solely on the effect on the price of oil (and really the resulting price for gas at the pump). They fail utterly when one considers all the other economic aspects of the issue.

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 4:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Apr 11 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You've completely changed your argument to one about domestic drilling creating jobs. Your initial argument was, and I quote you again...
Quote:
When prices are cheap, there's nothing wrong with buying our oil from foreign sources. But IMO the ability to be able to walk away from a foreign oil producer when we want and say "Nah. We'll just turn on those pumps we've got at home and save ourselves some cash" gives us not only significant economic advantages, but also gives us a bit more foreign policy leverage.

We're not going to be walking away from any foreign oil producer. How exactly do you propose that we only purchase domestically produced oil?

Your first link fails to address this at all. Your second link has the American Petroleum Institute guy admitting that just drilling for domestic oil won't affect global prices but it'll produce some jobs so yay for that. By the way, lulz at you snidely saying "political appointee!" but then taking an oil industry lobbyist's word as gospel.

If your argument is solely "Paying people to drill holes in the US results in hole drilling jobs", then let me know. But that wasn't what you were arguing. You were saying that we could just walk away from foreign oil producers and "save some cash" by "turning on the pumps at home".

Edited, Apr 11th 2011 7:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 9:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#68 Apr 12 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why "get serious about drilling" if no one can explain how this will significantly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil without utilizing strict market controls? We have no effective way to tell Saudi Arabia (for example) to piss off and stop buying their specific oil off the global market while ensuring that we only buy oil from Exxon drilled in the Gulf.

And, even if we could, we have no way to prevent Exxon from charging the same exact $135 a barrel for Gulf oil that the Saudi oil is costing. Try to pay Exxon less and they'll just sell the oil elsewhere for the real going rate. So this pipe dream that we'll "turn on the pumps at home and save ourselves some cash" is just that, a pipe dream.

Can we at least get an honest admission that domestic production isn't going to be some magic unshackling from foreign production?

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 10:34am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Apr 12 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
varusword75 wrote:
First lets start getting serious about drilling.
So you have no idea how you would be able to purchase only domestically produced oil? Got it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#70 Apr 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,611 posts
Jophiel wrote:
And, even if we could, we have no way to prevent Exxon from charging the same exact $135 a barrel for Gulf oil that the Saudi oil is costing. Try to pay Exxon less and they'll just sell the oil elsewhere for the real going rate. So this pipe dream that we'll "turn on the pumps at home and save ourselves some cash" is just that, a pipe dream.
That's easy to solve. Just buy up Exxon with US taxpayers money and dictate how they run things.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#71 Apr 12 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
**
272 posts
The government doesn't have to buy anything. You "nationalize" it.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#72varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 9:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#73 Apr 12 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
First off you have to start somewhere.

That's a meaningless phrase that does nothing to answer the question. We're supposedly "starting" to remove the shackles of foreign oil. So how does this "start" to do so? You can't just do random things and say "I can't say how this will work but you have to start somewhere..."

Quote:
And you won't have to prevent Exxon from charging the same exact 135$ a barrel. It would be in their best, most profitable, interests to offer a better product for less. You know that whole profit motive thing.

Exxon produced oil sells for the same price as the rest of the oil in its class on the global market. They will sell their sweet crude for the same price as every other producer is selling their sweet crude. We're not talking widgets here but global commodities.

So are you going to answer the question yet? How does domestic production allow us to "turn on the pumps at home and save some cash" thus giving us some sort of notable foreign policy leverage without strict market controls keeping that oil at home and underpriced?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#74 Apr 12 2011 at 10:16 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I daresay Joph has Varus over the proverbial barrel.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#75varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 10:21 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#76 Apr 12 2011 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
We're talking about capitalism.

Well, I am. You're talking some sort of unicorn daydreams.
Quote:
And it never ceases to amaze me that you think flooding the market with oil won't decrease it's cost.

You don't know what "flooding" is, do you?

Did you have an answer yet about how we're going to purchase and use US oil off the global market instead of foreign oil?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#77varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 10:31 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#78 Apr 12 2011 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The United States. Do try and keep up just a little, m'kay?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 10:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#80 Apr 12 2011 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The United States as a geographic region, not the government. Do try and keep up, m'kay?

Man, you're working HARD to avoid admitting that domestic production won't do jack towards allowing us to thumb our nose at foreign producers :D

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 11:45am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Apr 12 2011 at 11:53 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
How exactly do you propose that we only purchase domestically produced oil?


First lets start getting serious about drilling. Something that will never happen as long as the Dems have any say in the matter.
The only way we can purchase only domestically produced oil is if the US is the world's only supplier of oil. Not going to happen.

Or do you support a government takeover of the industry telling all oil companies operating in the US who they are allowed to sell to? Sure doesn't sound like the "less government is better government" conservative mantra to me.

So varus, why do you support government takeover of not just private companies, but EVERY private company in the entire industry?



Edited, Apr 12th 2011 12:56pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#82 Apr 12 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,886 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

We're talking about capitalism. And it never ceases to amaze me that you think flooding the market with oil won't decrease it's cost. It's like the words supply and demand have no meaning for you.


It's not in private companies' own interests to flood a market to the point of dropping prices.

In fact, I put forward this little truism as one possible reason that private companies have been granted a slew of drilling rights in the USA that they are not acting upon.

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:37pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#83varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Aripya,
#84 Apr 12 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel. The mere mention of loosening drilling restrictions causes the price of oil to drop.


No one would even think they could convince you - instead they just point out how you're consistently wrong and laugh at you Smiley: nod
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#85 Apr 12 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel.

I don't have to. You want the change so you should be able to argue and defend why the change should happen.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Apr 12 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:
You can't convince me that govn loosening drilling restrictions and really allowing US oil companies to access and distribute all this oil won't have a positive effect on the cost of fuel.
Just for the sake of example you might understand. Canada is a large oil producing nation, it is also a top exporter in the world, (supplying 20% of the Domestic US supply), it has the second largest reserves in the world. Yet despite all that oil, and all the supply (which has great demand) not only do we Export over 60% of it, we also pay more than you do in Gas prices. (currently 1.27 a liter in town which is 4.82/gallon.) As a top oil nation, we pay more than you do, because domestically produced oil is still subject to sale on the open market, and if a COMPANY can make more globally than nationally, then that is what they will do. Hence why 60% of our production is Exported (mostly to the US and Mexico) and we Import the majority of our Oil from the USA.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#87varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#88varusword75, Posted: Apr 12 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#89 Apr 12 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Are you going to actually say anything anytime soon?


Probably not. I prefer typing to VOIP.
ZING!

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:31pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#90 Apr 12 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
8$ a gallon lololol. That is rich. That is a 213% increase. From current levels. Considering the price of gas has only increased 31% since this time last year (and at an spikey rate due to the Global Economy recovering. But is still actually still 10% less than pre-recssion levels.)

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 3:37pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#91 Apr 12 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
And the argument for why change should happen now is real simple 8$ a gallon. That's it.

Well, you're right about it being "simple". Not exactly a strong argument supporting your claims though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Apr 12 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
And the argument for why change should happen now is real simple 8$ a gallon. That's it.

Well, you're right about it being "simple". Not exactly a strong argument supporting your claims though.


Pretty sure Varus' paranoia comes from columns like this:
Quote:
Better get ready for gas prices to go way back up, to the $4-per-gallon heights of last summer and even beyond. And it won’t be because of anything OPEC does, or the lunatics running either Iran or Venezuela. It will be because the U.S. government thinks you should pay much more for the gas you depend upon to get to work, go to the grocery store and pick up the kids at school. It’s all for your own good because, remember, the government is here to help us.

It hasn’t gotten much attention but Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice as Secretary of Energy, is a firm believer that the federal government should increase taxes on gas in order to push the price-per-gallon up to European levels. That’s what he told The Wall Street Journal in September. It’s for our own good, see, because forcing the price of gas into the stratosphere will make us stop driving our evil automobiles and instead use mass transit. Or bicycles. Or walk.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2008/12/are-you-ready-8-gallon-gasoline#ixzz1JLEcHuHf


Note that Obama went on record disagreeing with Chu's idea.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#93 Apr 12 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
**
272 posts
Disagreeing with a subordinate's claims is how you float media test balloons.

Technically if you want to push more mass transit and development of hydro/electric/hamster powered personal vehicles taxing the heck out of gas is the way to do it and there's nothing wrong with that agenda.

Somehow humans survived and procreated to the point where there are several billion of us on the planet prior to oil powered personal vehicles. I'm pretty sure peak oil (actual or forced) isn't going to kill us off.
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#94 Apr 12 2011 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We went around with that Chu article a few weeks back. That was when Gbaji tried to edumacate us all about oil subsidies and domestic production levels.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Apr 12 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.

Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#96 Apr 12 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,226 posts
paulsol wrote:
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.

Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.



I read an article a few weeks ago that says price really has very little to do with supply and demand and more to do with speculation.
Here it is.
#97 Apr 12 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
paulsol wrote:
I think todays oil prices are more a result of market speculation in oil futures. Which, if that's right would lead me to believe that its more connected to a function of supply/demand.

Which leads me to also believe that if people considerably and conciously reduce their demand for oil products, then the price will also drop.
It's actually not tied to supply/demand at all. The supply was unaffected by the Libya situation and yet the prices are still going up because of it.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#98 Apr 12 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
bsphil wrote:
It's actually not tied to supply/demand at all. The supply was unaffected by the Libya situation and yet the prices are still going up because of it.



Thats why I mentioned Future speculations as being the driver behind todays prices.

And whilst its just my musings on the subject and I happily admit its not my main interest in life, if oil prices were not connected to supply and demand, its the only commodity whose price isnt, that I can think of anyway.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#99 Apr 12 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
I just read the linked article and it seems to be agreeing with what I said...

That Oil prices are linked to the future market speculators who are gambling on there being a 'potential risk' to future supply.


It follows that if there is less demand, then oil prices will also fall.

Same as any other commodity, from carrots to cars.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#100 Apr 12 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,733 posts
paulsol wrote:
bsphil wrote:
It's actually not tied to supply/demand at all. The supply was unaffected by the Libya situation and yet the prices are still going up because of it.



Thats why I mentioned Future speculations as being the driver behind todays prices.

And whilst its just my musings on the subject and I happily admit its not my main interest in life, if oil prices were not connected to supply and demand, its the only commodity whose price isnt, that I can think of anyway.
Well, yeah. It's about future speculation, but future speculation doesn't need a basis in reality.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Stylish plugin for Firefox | ZAM/Allakhazam Widescreen/ad-free Stylish theme
#101 Apr 12 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Joph,

Quote:
Saudi Arabia doesn't like the idea of democracy


And how about the radical muslims that violently took control of the govn? Do you think they value the idea of democracy?

Quote:
wanted the US to prop up Mubarak


No they wanted to see if the US would support it's allies against radical muslims seeking to take control. Man you love twisting reality to suit your liberal talking points.

Fact is Obama has p*ssed on every major ME ally W spent a decade creating.


And you liberals don't give two sh*ts about another countries quest for democracy. Iraq was a perfect example of this. Saddam was an actual homicidal mass murdering dictator that continually threatened US interests abroad and you liberals actually worked counter to what the W administration was trying to do. So don't come here and pretend like you care about anyone in the ME; it just isn't so.


Brain not feel right?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Aethien, feelz, Kavekk, Anonymous Guests (54)