CDZ Do you welcome lower oil prices?

[Dan Daly]

The economy is tanking again,

Yeah, the economy is just peachy, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pretty pictures that say they came from somewhere, but you did not explain them, and you failed to source them.

Here, http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/09/20150916_obo.jpg.

It's near libertarian manifesto says, "our mission:

• to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
• to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
• to liberate oppressed knowledge.
• to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
• to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.

our method: pseudonymous speech...

anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.​

...responsibly used.

the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority​

though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't."

It's horse shit.

 

[baileyn45]

Pretty pictures that say they came from somewhere, but you did not explain them, and you failed to source them.

Here, http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/09/20150916_obo.jpg.

It's near libertarian manifesto says, "our mission:

• to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
• to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
• to liberate oppressed knowledge.
• to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
• to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.

our method: pseudonymous speech...

anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.​

...responsibly used.

the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

- mcintyre v. ohio elections commission 514 u.s. 334 (1995) justice stevens writing for the majority​

though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't."

It's horse shit.

I'm curious as how you call this libertarian. Plus as far as I can see the grapphs are accurate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Explain them. If you are saying that we are still recovering from the Congressional and Bush debacle 1994-2006, then, yes, we have a long ways to go.

And are you denying that we have come a long way since 2008.

 

[baileyn45]

Explain them. If you are saying that we are still recovering from the Congressional and Bush debacle 1994-2006, then, yes, we have a long ways to go.

And are you denying that we have come a long way since 2008.

We have come a long way, look at the graphs. None of It is positive and all of it is trending more negative. How this is good news is beyond me. Smacks of "the bridge is out 2 miles down the line, full steam ahead!"

I'm still curious as to how you can read the above mission statement and come up with "libertarian":

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you are not a competent thinker, bailey.

There it is.

 

[Staidhup]

Yes I welcome lower oil prices however as a result of continuing world wide recession no.

 

[320 Years of History]

Explain them. If you are saying that we are still recovering from the Congressional and Bush debacle 1994-2006, then, yes, we have a long ways to go.

And are you denying that we have come a long way since 2008.

We have come a long way, look at the graphs. None of It is positive and all of it is trending more negative. How this is good news is beyond me. Smacks of "the bridge is out 2 miles down the line, full steam ahead!"

I'm still curious as to how you can read the above mission statement and come up with "libertarian":

Does it really matter whether it's libertarian or not? Does it really matter whether he's right or wrong about whether it's libertarian?

 

[eagle1462010]

Only the big boys in the oil industry will survive this. A lot of the Fracking Companies are new and small. They are already falling right and left. It was their drilling across the country which accounted for a large portion of Job creation in this country. It was their investments that was pushing us towards energy independence.

OPEC doesn't want the competition. So they will Bankrupt them all. At the same time they are punishing Russia for trying to trade oil in a different currency.

The Big Oil companies will buy off the failing small Fracking companies for a small price ensuring that only Big Oil gets to play in the game.

Once they have caused enough to go under..........they will lower production dramatically and force the prices back up up and away as they MONOPOLIZE the industry.

Enjoy the low prices while you can.

 

[320 Years of History]

Only the big boys in the oil industry will survive this. A lot of the Fracking Companies are new and small. They are already falling right and left. It was their drilling across the country which accounted for a large portion of Job creation in this country. It was their investments that was pushing us towards energy independence.

OPEC doesn't want the competition. So they will Bankrupt them all. At the same time they are punishing Russia for trying to trade oil in a different currency.

The Big Oil companies will buy off the failing small Fracking companies for a small price ensuring that only Big Oil gets to play in the game.

Once they have caused enough to go under..........they will lower production dramatically and force the prices back up up and away as they MONOPOLIZE the industry.

Enjoy the low prices while you can.

I get the theme of your remarks, but given the reality of oil production volumes, it's improbable to me that OPEC countries, though they have a meaningful impact on the price of oil, have the ability to control global oil prices, and less so U.S. oil prices. The reasons I find the extent of price controlling ability you've identified as being improbable are these:

• Two of the top three oil producing nations together produce more oil than all of the top producing OPEC countries in the top ten of all oil producing countries.
• The U.S. imports about 27% of its oil, and of that 27%, 35% comes from OPEC countries. In other words, ~9.5% of U.S. oil comes from OPEC countries.
• Two of the top three oil producing nations on the planet are also the two of the top three consumers of oil on the planet.

In light of those facts, it's unlikely that OPEC nations have that much influence on the price of oil in the U.S.

Now the drop in the price of oil most certainly can, likely does, have the impact you noted, that is, that the lower price of oil is driving producers of oil shale oil out of business. The high price of oil we saw in the recent past is what made extracting/producing oil from oil shale, rocks, economically viable.

Very much the same thing exists with many things, potable drinking water, for example. You've surely heard the doldrums-stranded sailors' saying "water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink." There's more than enough water on the planet, but fresh, not salt, water is the type of water we most need. There's no question that we can desalinate seawater, but given the cost of doing so and the selling price of readily available fresh water, it's not economically viable to do so, except where/when freshwater just isn't available, or isn't available in sufficient supply to meet demand.

In places where that situation exists, the price of naturally fresh water and desalinated fresh water will at least be equal; moreover, makers of naturally fresh water may find a marketing "schtick" to "justify" charging more for naturally fresh water than for desalinated fresh water. I suspect too that makers of desalinated fresh water will counter that their process results "somehow" in "better" water than the naturally fresh variety. Between the two, consumers could very well see what may be thought of as a "race to charge more" for fresh, potable water.

 

[eagle1462010]

Only the big boys in the oil industry will survive this. A lot of the Fracking Companies are new and small. They are already falling right and left. It was their drilling across the country which accounted for a large portion of Job creation in this country. It was their investments that was pushing us towards energy independence.

OPEC doesn't want the competition. So they will Bankrupt them all. At the same time they are punishing Russia for trying to trade oil in a different currency.

The Big Oil companies will buy off the failing small Fracking companies for a small price ensuring that only Big Oil gets to play in the game.

Once they have caused enough to go under..........they will lower production dramatically and force the prices back up up and away as they MONOPOLIZE the industry.

Enjoy the low prices while you can.

I get the theme of your remarks, but given the reality of oil production volumes, it's improbable to me that OPEC countries, though they have a meaningful impact on the price of oil, have the ability to control global oil prices, and less so U.S. oil prices. The reasons I find the extent of price controlling ability you've identified as being improbable are these:

• Two of the top three oil producing nations together produce more oil than all of the top producing OPEC countries in the top ten of all oil producing countries.
• The U.S. imports about 27% of its oil, and of that 27%, 35% comes from OPEC countries. In other words, ~9.5% of U.S. oil comes from OPEC countries.
• Two of the top three oil producing nations on the planet are also the two of the top three consumers of oil on the planet.

In light of those facts, it's unlikely that OPEC nations have that much influence on the price of oil in the U.S.

Now the drop in the price of oil most certainly can, likely does, have the impact you noted, that is, that the lower price of oil is driving producers of oil shale oil out of business. The high price of oil we saw in the recent past is what made extracting/producing oil from oil shale, rocks, economically viable.

Very much the same thing exists with many things, potable drinking water, for example. You've surely heard the doldrums-stranded sailors' saying "water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink." There's more than enough water on the planet, but fresh, not salt, water is the type of water we most need. There's no question that we can desalinate seawater, but given the cost of doing so and the selling price of readily available fresh water, it's not economically viable to do so, except where/when freshwater just isn't available, or isn't available in sufficient supply to meet demand.

In places where that situation exists, the price of naturally fresh water and desalinated fresh water will at least be equal; moreover, makers of naturally fresh water may find a marketing "schtick" to "justify" charging more for naturally fresh water than for desalinated fresh water. I suspect too that makers of desalinated fresh water will counter that their process results "somehow" in "better" water than the naturally fresh variety. Between the two, consumers could very well see what may be thought of as a "race to charge more" for fresh, potable water.

Oil prices are driven by GLOBAL PRODUCTION not what we just use and produce here.

 

[320 Years of History]

Only the big boys in the oil industry will survive this. A lot of the Fracking Companies are new and small. They are already falling right and left. It was their drilling across the country which accounted for a large portion of Job creation in this country. It was their investments that was pushing us towards energy independence.

OPEC doesn't want the competition. So they will Bankrupt them all. At the same time they are punishing Russia for trying to trade oil in a different currency.

The Big Oil companies will buy off the failing small Fracking companies for a small price ensuring that only Big Oil gets to play in the game.

Once they have caused enough to go under..........they will lower production dramatically and force the prices back up up and away as they MONOPOLIZE the industry.

Enjoy the low prices while you can.

I get the theme of your remarks, but given the reality of oil production volumes, it's improbable to me that OPEC countries, though they have a meaningful impact on the price of oil, have the ability to control global oil prices, and less so U.S. oil prices. The reasons I find the extent of price controlling ability you've identified as being improbable are these:

• Two of the top three oil producing nations together produce more oil than all of the top producing OPEC countries in the top ten of all oil producing countries.
• The U.S. imports about 27% of its oil, and of that 27%, 35% comes from OPEC countries. In other words, ~9.5% of U.S. oil comes from OPEC countries.
• Two of the top three oil producing nations on the planet are also the two of the top three consumers of oil on the planet.

In light of those facts, it's unlikely that OPEC nations have that much influence on the price of oil in the U.S.

Now the drop in the price of oil most certainly can, likely does, have the impact you noted, that is, that the lower price of oil is driving producers of oil shale oil out of business. The high price of oil we saw in the recent past is what made extracting/producing oil from oil shale, rocks, economically viable.

Very much the same thing exists with many things, potable drinking water, for example. You've surely heard the doldrums-stranded sailors' saying "water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink." There's more than enough water on the planet, but fresh, not salt, water is the type of water we most need. There's no question that we can desalinate seawater, but given the cost of doing so and the selling price of readily available fresh water, it's not economically viable to do so, except where/when freshwater just isn't available, or isn't available in sufficient supply to meet demand.

In places where that situation exists, the price of naturally fresh water and desalinated fresh water will at least be equal; moreover, makers of naturally fresh water may find a marketing "schtick" to "justify" charging more for naturally fresh water than for desalinated fresh water. I suspect too that makers of desalinated fresh water will counter that their process results "somehow" in "better" water than the naturally fresh variety. Between the two, consumers could very well see what may be thought of as a "race to charge more" for fresh, potable water.

Oil prices are driven by GLOBAL PRODUCTION not what we just use and produce here.

Oil prices, like those of all commodities, are driven by both supply (production) and demand (sales/purchases), and it is the intersection of the two, the equilibrium point, that denotes the price of the commodity. If one can control one or the other of those two things, either by being the majority producer or majority buyer, one can control the price. Lacking that, one can only attempt to influence the price, but one's attempts are subject to what others are doing, that is whether they will, or are unable to avoid, pay(ing) the price one demands.

Looking at the list of oil producing nations and who produces how much it hardly looks like OPEC is in a position to control the price of oil in the marketplace, at least not on the basis of their production volumes. So if not that, what would/does allow OPEC nations to have the extent of control that you ascribed to them?

OPEC nations operate with relative "unity" (for want of a better term) as oil producers/sellers, but that's about it. There nonetheless remain some 120 or so oil producing nations on the planet. About the only thing in my mind that might distinguish OPEC nations from other oil producing nations is that OPEC nations may not consume as much oil as they produce, whereas other nations, the U.S. for example, consume more than it can domestically produce. If in the oil marketplace OPEC nations can exert meaningful control on the price, it might issue from those nations be the "gap fillers" for some or even many nations that do not produce enough oil to meet their domestic needs.

That's just an educated guess on my part, however. I've not researched to determine whether that is in fact the case and indeed a significant enough factor, a significant enough position in the marketplace, for them to exert the extent of control you've identified.

• How much influence does OPEC have on the global price of oil? | Investopedia
• OPEC vs the U.S.: Who Controls Oil Prices? | Investopedia
• Why OPEC Can’t Win The Oil Price War | OilPrice.com

It's not that I think OPEC's actions don't have an influence on the price of oil. I know their actions do. I'm saying that the extent of their influence isn't a controlling one, certainly not controlling enough to account for the drop from $100+/barrel to today's ~$25/barrel. (Energy & Financial Markets - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA))

Just as a point of information, not to support anything I've written: Historic oil prices.

 

[jon_berzerk]

yes

filled the truck for 39 bucks the other day

the car for 20.06

the others didnt need any

maybe i will have to run them

so i can fill em with cheap gas --LOL

 

[baileyn45]

Explain them. If you are saying that we are still recovering from the Congressional and Bush debacle 1994-2006, then, yes, we have a long ways to go.

And are you denying that we have come a long way since 2008.

We have come a long way, look at the graphs. None of It is positive and all of it is trending more negative. How this is good news is beyond me. Smacks of "the bridge is out 2 miles down the line, full steam ahead!"

I'm still curious as to how you can read the above mission statement and come up with "libertarian":

Does it really matter whether it's libertarian or not? Does it really matter whether he's right or wrong about whether it's libertarian?

Just curious. People throw labels around with no apparent understanding of what the label means.

 

[320 Years of History]

Explain them. If you are saying that we are still recovering from the Congressional and Bush debacle 1994-2006, then, yes, we have a long ways to go.

And are you denying that we have come a long way since 2008.

We have come a long way, look at the graphs. None of It is positive and all of it is trending more negative. How this is good news is beyond me. Smacks of "the bridge is out 2 miles down the line, full steam ahead!"

I'm still curious as to how you can read the above mission statement and come up with "libertarian":

Does it really matter whether it's libertarian or not? Does it really matter whether he's right or wrong about whether it's libertarian?

Just curious. People throw labels around with no apparent understanding of what the label means.

Okay

 

[Manonthestreet]

When did low prices become bad............been listening to greenies too long

 

[320 Years of History]

When did low prices become bad............been listening to greenies too long

Considered in exclusion, they aren't bad at all. Considered in terms of what it means for people, companies and nations that rely on oil profits, it's a very different story with regard to the global economy and politics once one considers the penchants of the folks/entities who have those dependencies.

Might it be, for example, that someone (or a group) has determined that the way to destroy ISIS is to drive oil prices down and thereby limit their expansion capability? Sure, that's possible. Might it also be that nations/entities that depend on oil revenues feel pressured to take more drastic, perhaps bellicose, actions of some sort(s) in order to secure other/new sources of revenue? Yes, that's also possible. And in each hypothetical scenario, whether such a party can in fact, as seen after the fact, successfully achieve their aim doesn't necessarily mean they won't try to do so.

This thread asks one to consider those factors and present a thesis statement reflecting their view and support it with an well reasoned argument.

 

[D Truth]

"Brent, the global oil marker, fell by more than $2, or 6 per cent, to $31.48 a barrel in late trading, a level last reached in April 2004. On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark, dropped $1.70 to $31.28 a barrel, a fresh 12-year low." Morgan Stanley says $20/barrel isn't out of the question.

How do you view the big drop in oil prices? Do you just think that lower petroleum prices are a good thing (overall) because it means you're paying less for gas? Do you see problems, problems bigger and more important than your having to pay higher gasoline prices, with prices being so low and desire a return to higher prices per barrel?

For my part, I certainly don't offer to pay the gas station more, so I am availing myself of lower fuel prices; however, I would just as soon see the price rise. The lower prices are placing a strain on quite a few national economies as well as on employment in the domestic oil and gas industry. I don't see either of those things as good for the U.S., even though I am sure all most consumers see is that they are paying a good deal less than a couple years ago for gas.

Holy shit!


They say there are no stupid questions... but this has to be the exception that proves the rule.
The US economy is entirely linked to oil price. Yeah, yeah bloviate the nonsensical talking points, maybe if you repeat it enough it may affect the simpletons.

Seems we have a lot of bellyaching from wannabe intellectuals that normal working people might be able to survive. To the normal people out there doesn't this make you wonder who's side they are really on?

 

[320 Years of History]

"Brent, the global oil marker, fell by more than $2, or 6 per cent, to $31.48 a barrel in late trading, a level last reached in April 2004. On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark, dropped $1.70 to $31.28 a barrel, a fresh 12-year low." Morgan Stanley says $20/barrel isn't out of the question.

How do you view the big drop in oil prices? Do you just think that lower petroleum prices are a good thing (overall) because it means you're paying less for gas? Do you see problems, problems bigger and more important than your having to pay higher gasoline prices, with prices being so low and desire a return to higher prices per barrel?

For my part, I certainly don't offer to pay the gas station more, so I am availing myself of lower fuel prices; however, I would just as soon see the price rise. The lower prices are placing a strain on quite a few national economies as well as on employment in the domestic oil and gas industry. I don't see either of those things as good for the U.S., even though I am sure all most consumers see is that they are paying a good deal less than a couple years ago for gas.

Holy shit!


They say there are no stupid questions... but this has to be the exception that proves the rule.
The US economy is entirely linked to oil price. Yeah, yeah bloviate the nonsensical talking points, maybe if you repeat it enough it may affect the simpletons.

Seems we have a lot of bellyaching from wannabe intellectuals that normal working people might be able to survive. To the normal people out there doesn't this make you wonder who's side they are really on?

What are the defining characteristics, as goes the context of your post, of the so-called "normal people" to whom your question/remarks are directed?

 

[william the wie]

Unless you work in or otherwise are heavily invested in the oil industry lower oil prices are better. The problem with most economics in the past 30 years is the legacy use of continuous function shortcuts even though it is more reliable and increasingly less costly to use brute strength in the form of computer power to get the right answer the first time.