The Manchurian President

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
And Mr. President controls a portion of the world's supply, in this case deciding to reduce it, thus likely causing a global price increased to some extent.

Fern

Thus likely means your guessing right?
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Your short term memory is so bad that you should see a doctor. Crude Oil hit an all-time high of $145 per barrel in JUNE, 2008 after a very short run up. The free market adopted by essentially shutting down auto and truck sales, especially US manufacturers. That price spike coincides almost exactly with the beginning of what is now commonly known as the Great Recession.

Please don't use such obviously made up facts to support your rants.

Hey, pup, maybe you should check your own facts before you speak with such authority.

The run-up started in 2004, and hit 30-year highs by 2006, with all-time highs before 2007 was over.

And please tell me what I said wasn't true again? How much did we hear about oil-shale recovery during those years? How much did we hear about alternative biofuels and high-efficiency modifications to just about everything in our lives? Truck and SUV sales plummeted, fuel-efficient cars started selling like hotcakes. How many hybrid vehicles existed in the early part of the decade? How many exist now?

PS-the only "liberal" calls I've seen for oil and gas futures regulation is a very commonsense call for a prohibition against naked futures. That makes a lot of sense to me in all futures markets, where our present poorly regulated systems allow future prices to be grossly distorted by market manipulators. The exact same thing is happening now in the silver and gold markets.

I agree that commonsense reforms can be made, but if you think that is the only call of the "green" movement from the left, you're simply not paying attention to the world around you.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
So do we import 100% of our oil? Or 0%? I don't want to hear another Democrat whine about dependency on foreign oil ever again, since we've cleared up in this thread that it simply isn't true.

LOL, come on man, that's their whole shtick. If we could supply more of our own oil than it would step on their green push.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Where should these "speculators" put their money, Craig? Should they just keep their money in cash while Bernanke runs the printing presses?


How about those speculators have to take delivery of the commodity, in this case oil, they put their money in instead of doing the musical chair paper shuffle while real people pay for their greed at the pump.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
LOL, come on man, that's their whole shtick. If we could supply more of our own oil than it would step on their green push.

Standard Rightie rhetoric- the answer isn't to consume less, but rather to produce more, as if oil isn't a finite resource. Suck it out of the ground, blow it out of our tailpipes as fast as possible, because it won't matter when the rapture comes, correct?

If pigs had wings, they'd fly, and if we use up our own oil at a higher rate, we'll screw ourselves sooner than later. Both statements are true, but only one makes sense. Go figure.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Standard Rightie rhetoric- the answer isn't to consume less, but rather to produce more, as if oil isn't a finite resource. Suck it out of the ground, blow it out of our tailpipes as fast as possible, because it won't matter when the rapture comes, correct?

If pigs had wings, they'd fly, and if we use up our own oil at a higher rate, we'll screw ourselves sooner than later. Both statements are true, but only one makes sense. Go figure.

Typical lefty rhetoric - the answer is to shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which ones fills up first.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
How about those speculators have to take delivery of the commodity, in this case oil, they put their money in instead of doing the musical chair paper shuffle while real people pay for their greed at the pump.

LOL, hey if that is required for gold and silver too, then I say, "fine with me." :cool:

But believe me, that would make a few entities go :eek:.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
you lefties/righties realize you've been duped yet? Its two sides of the same team and always has been. meet the new boss same as the old, Same pig different color lipstick etc etc etc.

no need to be but hurt over it, now you can move forward.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Standard Rightie rhetoric- the answer isn't to consume less, but rather to produce more, as if oil isn't a finite resource. Suck it out of the ground, blow it out of our tailpipes as fast as possible, because it won't matter when the rapture comes, correct?

If pigs had wings, they'd fly, and if we use up our own oil at a higher rate, we'll screw ourselves sooner than later. Both statements are true, but only one makes sense. Go figure.

So do we import any oil or not? If drilling in the US does nothing to help the US, because it all goes on the market, then technically we are 100% dependent on foreign oil. Also, every other nation is 100% dependent on foreign oil for that matter.

Otherwise, we are 0% dependent on forein oil, and you can stop whining about the US being at the whims of the ME.

But wait... we import 13 or our 20 million barrels per day? So we have 7 million barrels produced and used domestically? HOW CAN THAT BE?!?!?!?
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Meanwhile, pretty much everyone in the world is drilling in the Gulf except for the United States and at the same time the United States is financing drilling in the Gulf by Petrobas of Brazil.

And of course george soros is a big investor in Petrobas.... what say you dmcowen674?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally Posted by Fern
And Mr. President controls a portion of the world's supply, in this case deciding to reduce it, thus likely causing a global price increased to some extent.

Fern
Thus likely means your guessing right?

There's no guessing on the demand/supply part and the effect on prices. The guessing would be on the amount of the price increase.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Standard Rightie rhetoric- the answer isn't to consume less, but rather to produce more, as if oil isn't a finite resource. Suck it out of the ground, blow it out of our tailpipes as fast as possible, because it won't matter when the rapture comes, correct?

-snip-

We need to do both - consume less and produce more.

The higher price is a drag on our, and the world's, economy.

The US gov (and in some cases the states) would make huge amounts of revenue from lease fees and royalties. We could use some of these additional revenues to fund green tech.

We'd help employment, again another revenue benefit to the USA too.

The green tech (renewables, whatever you want to call it) has been the primary target of venture capitalists/private investers for about 10 yrs now. It's received billions if not trillions of $'s. R&D takes not only money but time. It'll be ready when it's ready. In the meantime it's dumb idea to 'punish' the world by not drilling because green tech is taking longer than you'd like.

Fern