Got Gas? U.S. Economy to Worsen as Gas Prices Skyrocket

[CPA]

Can someone tell me where the Liberal cries for "Windfall Tax" and "President's Oil Cronies" is at? Because when gas was this high during Bush's years, that's all you heard from the left.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, if it's a myth and it's been described at the mighty P&N then it must just be a conservative invention. Bullshit. If you think that various media outlets don't favor Democrats over Republicans you're either lying, or kidding yourself.
No amount of proof I can show you will ever allow you to tell the truth, since it's too much of an advantage for the left.

Except of course my opinion is based on actual peer reviewed research and meta-analysis. Yours is based on what your gut tells you. Those two are not equal.

Like I said, it's an article of faith in the conservative culture of perpetual victimhood. If conservatives admit the media doesn't have a systemic bias against them then it's harder to portray themselves as helpless victims.

 

[The-Noid]

Can someone tell me where the Liberal cries for "Windfall Tax" and "President's Oil Cronies" is at? Because when gas was this high during Bush's years, that's all you heard from the left.

The earnings numbers haven't come out yet.

XOM only made $41B last year, not the $44B they made in 2008...

Apparently that $3B crosses the maximum profit line.

 

[fskimospy]

The earnings numbers haven't come out yet.

XOM only made $41B last year, not the $44B they made in 2008...

Apparently that $3B crosses the maximum profit line.

Just to be clear, they made those profits last year when gas prices weren't nearly as high. I'd fully expect more hate on the oil companies after earnings are released. As for the 'oil cronies', are you really attempting to argue that the federal government under Bush didn't have some awfully uncomfortable ties to the oil industry?

If you want to know why it's not more prevalent though, that's pretty easy to figure out. When Bush was in office you had the Democratic Party pushing that narrative, and people respond to the stories they see. This year the Democrats don't want to bring attention to the high prices, and Republicans are far more interested in pushing reasons outside of corporate profits for them. When elites don't push a narrative, you don't hear it as much.

 

[The-Noid]

If you want to know why it's not more prevalent though, that's pretty easy to figure out. When Bush was in office you had the Democratic Party pushing that narrative, and people respond to the stories they see. This year the Democrats don't want to bring attention to the high prices, and Republicans are far more interested in pushing reasons outside of corporate profits for them. When elites don't push a narrative, you don't hear it as much.

That is the least partisan thing I have ever seen you write.

Also, I agree 100%...

The other point is that the price of Crude especially Brent (which prices most refined products) was quite high last year because of the Arab spring.

Brent 2011 Averaged $109.06 for spot.

WTI 2011 Averaged $95.39

 

[werepossum]

Well just look at it this way.

Today is a payroll for a lot of companies that pay every 2 weeks. Otherwise Tuesday will be payroll for the month-end. Companies withdraw from paychecks for both pension contributions and 401(k). The money that goes into the pension or 401(k)s that have commodity funds will invest the money (as they should) to their policy portfolio. If the policy portfolio consists of oil or oil derivatives they will buy more at the current price (whether they believe the fundamentals or not).

The commodities market is set up for two way trading and over the last 20 years the market has let in more and more participants that are long only. Whether that be through stacks or strips or oil derivatives/cash settles, they still continue to be marginal buyers regardless of price. The pension money tends to be more sticky, whereas the 401k money that goes to mutual funds obviously tends to be more flexible and tends to chase higher prices and then sell (exacerbating swings), none of these participants should be in the oil or even any commodities markets to begin with. Let them play in the inflation derivatives market/indexed markets, keep them out of physicals. Seems fairly straight forward to me.

The order book in oil is very thin right now on the offer side (no one wants to sell when Iran could come out with some market moving news tomorrow or the next day) and these relatively small marginal buyers have a much larger impact then in normal supply/demand times because of thin liquidity.

Thanks, that's easy enough to understand. I can definitely understand why going long on oil is a reasonably safe investment when averaged over time, as well as why these marginal buyers could have a vastly disproportionate affect on prices given the facts that no oil will go unsold and many things currently up in the air can make oil much more expensive in the near future.

Put that way, oil futures seem like the ideal investment vehicle, as the investment itself increases the likelihood of the investment paying off.

Any thoughts on my guesses of the impact of drilling in ANWR, or rather on the effect of any significant new supplies coming on line in general?

 

[The-Noid]

The move in oil prices over the last two weeks (assuming they stay here for 12 weeks or longer) has taken an average of 56bps off annualized growth in the US and an average of 1.22% in emerging markets, depending on the models used. (my guess is there is also some cross correlation/covariance there as well).

Japan is probably going to be one of the worst hit. When do we get a Japan crisis?

 

[Ausm]

Drill baby drill!

 

[Ausm]

Oh, if it's a myth and it's been described at the mighty P&N then it must just be a conservative invention. Bullshit. If you think that various media outlets don't favor Democrats over Republicans you're either lying, or kidding yourself.
No amount of proof I can show you will ever allow you to tell the truth, since it's too much of an advantage for the left.

LMAO

 

[The-Noid]

Drill baby drill!

All I can think of is how Tina Fey said "Drill, Drill, Drill" playing Sarah Palin on SNL now...

 

[The-Noid]

Any thoughts on my guesses of the impact of drilling in ANWR, or rather on the effect of any significant new supplies coming on line in general?

I have no idea. Markets and politics don't pay to think long-term anymore.

Short-term thinking is all that is important.

Oil demand is down in the US, it's down abroad. The price increase is due to the fear of supply disruption. Long-term fundamentals will take the prices down $20 or so if Iran gets sorted out.

Having some kind of a long-term energy policy in this country may take another dime or so out of the price. IDK. Consensus (right or wrong) is we have no energy policy at this point.

 

[Ausm]

All I can think of is how Tina Fey said "Drill, Drill, Drill" playing Sarah Palin on SNL now...

hahaha +1

 

[The-Noid]

WTI 109.50, Brent 125++

 

[werepossum]

I have no idea. Markets and politics don't pay to think long-term anymore.

Short-term thinking is all that is important.

Oil demand is down in the US, it's down abroad. The price increase is due to the fear of supply disruption. Long-term fundamentals will take the prices down $20 or so if Iran gets sorted out.

Having some kind of a long-term energy policy in this country may take another dime or so out of the price. IDK. Consensus (right or wrong) is we have no energy policy at this point.

I'd certainly agree we have no coherent energy policy, but rather two competing energy policies based almost solely on political concerns. At some point we'll have to embrace at least part of the Democrats' energy policy, moving away from oil into alternate (and hopefully cleaner) energy sources. It's just difficult to do so when we are so deeply in debt and digging so energetically, so that we can't afford the basic research we need to be funding and can't afford economically to take the hit from moving io much more expensive and less efficient alternative energy sources.

But that's rather far afield from gas prices and their economic affect, so I'd best desist now before I get slammed fro thread crapping. LOL Thanks for the informed input.

 

[wirednuts]

ill just stay home until it drops back down to 99 cents a gallon

 

[monovillage]

Except of course my opinion is based on actual peer reviewed research and meta-analysis. Yours is based on what your gut tells you. Those two are not equal.

Like I said, it's an article of faith in the conservative culture of perpetual victimhood. If conservatives admit the media doesn't have a systemic bias against them then it's harder to portray themselves as helpless victims.

Even wiki admits to a certain amount of bias in the media, even wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Look up some of the links. So take your lefty research and shove it up Soros funded mediamatters ass.

 

[fskimospy]

Even wiki admits to a certain amount of bias in the media, even wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Look up some of the links. So take your lefty research and shove it up Soros funded mediamatters ass.

You didn't read your own article if you think it supports you. lol.

I don't know where you got George Soros, lefty research, or media matters from, but I imagine that's part of the culture of victimhood. Do you feel besieged at all times by this made up stuff? My research isn't 'lefty', it's peer reviewed academic research. (I imagine you believe researchers to be part of the conspiracy victimizing you as well however, so not sure what that's worth)

 

[monovillage]

I read it and it pretty clearly states that any reasonable person would acknowledge there's some level of media bias in the U.S. You can argue about the level of bias if you want, but not that it's non-existent.
You can take your researchers and i'll provide my own researchers and we'll see they disagree. Whoop dee doo.
What is with this "victimizing" bullshit? It's opinion, it's political opinion. If you want a "victim", look someplace else.

 

[fskimospy]

I read it and it pretty clearly states that any reasonable person would acknowledge there's some level of media bias in the U.S. You can argue about the level of bias if you want, but not that it's non-existent.
You can take your researchers and i'll provide my own researchers and we'll see they disagree. Whoop dee doo.
What is with this "victimizing" bullshit? It's opinion, it's political opinion. If you want a "victim", look someplace else.

No, my research indicates there is no aggregate left/right bias in the media. It does not mean that individual organizations are not biased, but as a whole the institution is not. You're attempting a false equivalence. My position has more credible support than yours.

It's not political opinion, it is either true or it's not. Conservatives frequently claim that they are victimized by a whole host of boogeymen, the media being one of the largest imagined culprits. The irony of the promoters of self reliance constantly complaining of how picked on they are is not lost on me, btw.

 

[monovillage]

No, my research indicates there is no aggregate left/right bias in the media. It does not mean that individual organizations are not biased, but as a whole the institution is not. You're attempting a false equivalence. My position has more credible support than yours.

It's not political opinion, it is either true or it's not. Conservatives frequently claim that they are victimized by a whole host of boogeymen, the media being one of the largest imagined culprits. The irony of the promoters of self reliance constantly complaining of how picked on they are is not lost on me, btw.

I almost think you're serious. Your "research" tells you there isn't and has never been any media bias in the United States media?

Have you ever heard the joke about the guy caught cheating on his wife and he asks her "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

I'm going to keep believing my eyes and what I watch, read and hear. Feel free to list links to your "research" though.

I'll look them over.

 

[dmcowen674]

WTI 109.50, Brent 125++

Stations now over $5.20 in LA

2-24-2012

http://www.losangelesgasprices.com/

$5.29 and $5.21 respectively

Chevron 811 W Olympic Blvd & Figueroa St



Los Angeles truce2099

9 hours ago
update Mobil 1030 S Hacienda Blvd & Gale Ave



Hacienda Heights Samo1961

9 hours ago

Running a dollar less than LA in downtown Chicago at $4.29 and $4.25


http://chicagogasprices.com/

update Mobil 3159 W Chicago Ave & Kedzie Ave



Chicago - West lilalex05
5 hours ago
update BP 1600 N Elston Ave & North Ave



Chicago - Central ChiDrew
5 hours ago


http://www.newyorkgasprices.com/

$4.49 in New York City



CITGO 1320 Hutchinson River Pkwy N near E Tremont Exit



Bronx mikespipe

13 hours ago
update CITGO 1325 Hutchinson River Pkwy S near Waters Pl Exit



Bronx BxBiker

13 hours ago

 

[fskimospy]

I almost think you're serious. Your "research" tells you there isn't and has never been any media bias in the United States media?

Have you ever heard the joke about the guy caught cheating on his wife and he asks her "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?

I'm going to keep believing my eyes and what I watch, read and hear. Feel free to list links to your "research" though.

I'll look them over.

Yep, no aggregate media bias. I have posted links to such research many times in the past. Use the search function.

Of course you think you see media bias. You are highly partisan and therefore even more susceptible than most to confirmation bias. It's funny how you try to equate your perception of the media with some sort of unquestionable reality. Your exact problem is that your perceptions are skewed by your ultra right wing ideology.

There are other interesting studies dealing with your problem. You can show a down the middle news excerpt to groups of both left and right wing partisans and have both come back and report it was biased against them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Currently Denver enjoys around a dollar to dollar fifty less in gas than the rest of the country but that will change when they reverse the pipeline going to Denver and they send the oil down instead of up.

2-23-2012

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dis-united-states-gas-prices-182602059.html

The Dis-United States of Gas Prices: Why Fuel Is So Cheap in Denver

Right now, the United States has a big glut of crude oil sitting in the middle of the country, and no easy way to move it, it's very, very good to be a commuter in Colorado.

It's not unusual for U.S. gas prices to vary by region, sometimes drastically. All sorts of factors come into play, including local regulations, gas taxes, and the distance from the nearest refinery. But those aren't the reasons behind the big discrepancies we're now seeing in American gas prices. There's a much bigger issue at play that speaks to the strange state of the country's oil supply.

The combination of surging production from Canada's tar sands and North Dakota's Bakken region has overwhelmed the existing pipelines to the Gulf of Mexico, where it would ordinarily be refined and shipped onto the global market.

According to Oil Price Information Service analyst Tom Kloza, oil from North Dakota has recently been selling for around $83 a barrel. Canadian crude has been trading for even less.

That good fortune might soon be coming to an end, however. Owners of the Seaway pipeline are planning to reverse it's flow in June, which will allow it to begin shipping 150,000 barrels of oil a day from Cushing Oklahoma, where most of that Canadian and North Dakotan crude is currently sitting, to the gulf.

So no, unlocking that big supply of oil won't do much for gas prices on the coasts. It'll just make American and Canadian oil equally expensive as the stuff drilled up in Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. So those commuters in Colorado will finally be suffering with the rest of us.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Currently Denver enjoys around a dollar to dollar fifty less in gas than the rest of the country but that will change when they reverse the pipeline going to Denver and they send the oil down instead of up.

The last I checked North Dakota and Canada are north of Colorado.

 

[dmcowen674]

The last I checked North Dakota and Canada are north of Colorado.

and what does that have to do with the tea in china?

I'm surprised Denver has lower gas prices than the Utopia of Texas.