*Cost Of Everythings Going Up: Thanks Fucking Obama!*

[Pogo]

Sorry bout that,


1. The *fucking* oil companies are controlling the price, they all send out noticed to each other how much they are going to raise and or lower the price of gasoline/diesel, that's *price fixing*!!!!!
2. And this government headed by *fucking buckwheat* does nothing to stop the *price fixing*!!!!!
3. Thanks *fucking* Obama!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry you're such a dipwad.

1. the POTUS has no influence on the international oil market. That has not changed since yesterday. You'll be delighted to know you're just as wrong as you were yesterday.
2. Do you get paid by the explanation point?
3. "Buckwheat" ?

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Gas prices hovering over $3.00 for long periods of time effect the cost of goods and services.
2. Thanks fucking Obama, for not doing something about the obvious.
3. Everything costs more now, thanks ass hole!
4. We are a oil based economy, and we are being rapped by the oil giants and government regulations on the quality and mix of gasoline.
5. This shit for brains Obama, doesn't know jack shit about anything.
6. End of story.


Regards,
SirJamesfTexas

When i was a kid a Coke was 5 or 10 cents, thanks Obama!

 

[Moonglow]

Sorry bout that,


1. The *fucking* oil companies are controlling the price, they all send out noticed to each other how much they are going to raise and or lower the price of gasoline/diesel, that's *price fixing*!!!!!
2. And this government headed by *fucking buckwheat* does nothing to stop the *price fixing*!!!!!
3. Thanks *fucking* Obama!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry you're such a dipwad.

1. the POTUS has no influence on the international oil market. That has not changed since yesterday. You'll be delighted to know you're just as wrong as you were yesterday.
2. Do you get paid by the explanation point?
3. "Buckwheat" ?

He's just having another dumb shit attack. Turds discolored!? Blame your president

 

[Rshermr]

Maybe you should actually research what a Series 3 license is.

It is a really simple thing. Not much to research. 120 question multiple choice test, you need to score 70%. Damn, now that is rigorous. Should give you a right to call yourself an expert. Good for you.

I'll do the research for you. I already know you're pretty bad at it.

Definition of 'Series 3'
A securities license entitling the holder to sell commodities or futures contracts.

If you are a smart, dedicated individual seriously pursuing a financial services career in the area of financial risk management, then you are someone for whom this guide is intended.

Futures are the crossroads where the Farm Belt and Wall Street meet. Without futures traders, the market for grains and meats of all kind would be an inefficient network of brokers trying to understand farming and farmers trying to understand brokerages. It would be plagued by supply imbalances (gluts and shortages), both local and worldwide. American and global consumers alike would be unable to budget how much to spend on next month's groceries.

The exam contains 120 questions, about a third of which are true/false and the other two thirds multiple choice. A successful candidate will achieve a score of at least 70% on both the industry knowledge and regulatory sections. A very high score on one section will not offset a failing score on the other. Therefore, the candidate should be well prepared for all of the exam topics. Though study habits differ by individual, in general, a well prepared candidate will have studied in excess of 70 hours.

Exam Contents
The exam is broken down into eight topics:

• Futures theory and terminology;
• Market operations;
• Orders and price analysis;
• Hedging;
• Spreading;
• Speculating in futures;
• Option hedging, speculating and spreading; and
• Regulation.

Of these, regulation is the most important. Not only does it account for 35 of the 120 exam questions, it is graded as a stand-alone test. You have to score 70% correct on the regulation questions in addition to 70% on the others – collectively called "market knowledge" – in order to pass the exam. You could score 100% on the market knowledge but, if you don't get at least 25 correct answers out of the 35 questions devoted to regulation, you fail the entire exam.

The test preparers further break down hedging into two sub-topics:

Basic hedging, basis calculation and hedging commodity futures; and Hedging financial and monetary futures.

Speculating is similarly divided into:

• Speculating in commodity futures and
• Speculating in financial and monetary futures.

Preface ? Series 3 - National Commodities Futures | Investopedia

Very sad. Can't even do research without looking like a complete tool.

Do you have a basic understanding of what your are dealing with, now?

I will pass and look to the experts for expertise.

Found more internet bloggers and columnist to pass off as experts, I see.

Jesus, you are an idiot. So, I said it was a 120 question test. You said it was a 120 question test. I said it was multiple choice. You corrected me to let me know that it was partly true and false. Then you provide an advertising piece for a group giving the test. ANYONE, my poor ignorant tool, ANYONE, can sign up for the test. Just pay the fee, and take the test.
And you should expect to study a whole 70 hours for the test. Uh, dipshit, 70 hours??? I mean, no wonder you are so proud, you had to actually study as long as what a college attendee would study every two weeks.
I think I get it now. You are so stupid you think you are showing a major accomplishment. Idiot.
Now, if you go to college, you take hundreds of tests at least as large as that one. You are a clown. Jesus. You are so proud of this simple little accomplishment. You must be a very little person. A little bitty person with nothing much to talk about as far as accomplishments in your life. You made that point. It is very, very clear. And yes, I do sort of feel sorry for you.

 

[AmazonTania]

It is a really simple thing. Not much to research. 120 question multiple choice test, you need to score 70%. Damn, now that is rigorous. Should give you a right to call yourself an expert. Good for you.

I'll do the research for you. I already know you're pretty bad at it.



Very sad. Can't even do research without looking like a complete tool.

Do you have a basic understanding of what your are dealing with, now?

I will pass and look to the experts for expertise.

Found more internet bloggers and columnist to pass off as experts, I see.

Jesus, you are an idiot. So, I said it was a 120 question test. You said it was a 120 question test. I said it was multiple choice. You corrected me to let me know that it was partly true and false.

You were wrong about more than just the number of questions. The Regulation Portion of the test is it's own test. If you fail this, you fail the entire test, even if you pass the market knowledge portion. Even still, the market knowledge portion -- which makes up 85 questions on the test -- you must obtain 70% correct on this portion as well. You cannot fail one and not the other. You must pass both portions.

You were wrong about many things. You are not as smart as you think you are. But that is nothing new really.

Then you provide an advertising piece for a group giving the test. ANYONE, my poor ignorant tool, ANYONE, can sign up for the test. Just pay the fee, and take the test.

Taking a test and passing it are two different things. The success rate according to FINRA is 43%. And that is just with first time takers.

And you should expect to study a whole 70 hours for the test. Uh, dipshit, 70 hours???

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It says 'an excess of 70 hours.' This means one is expected to study far more. Although, someone preparing for the exam is expected to study far less. There are people who don't study at all, which is what contributes to the high failure rate.

I mean, no wonder you are so proud, you had to actually study as long as what a college attendee would study every two weeks.

But I studied, became certified, started a career and manage other another's money. Whereas a college student just studied, graduated and is currently on the unemployment line.

Employers in the real world want marketable skills, not ignorant opinions such as yours.

Now, if you go to college, you take hundreds of tests at least as large as that one. You are a clown. Jesus. You are so proud of this simple little accomplishment. You must be a very little person.

It's simple, yet you don't have a basic understand of what the exam is about. You've already demonstrated you'd be among the 57% of first-time failures.

Lots of people in college take hundreds of test, and when they graduate they still have zero demonstration of how much they have actually learned and zero marketable skills. Must be why there are so many unemployed college graduates. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a college graduate actually.

A little bitty person with nothing much to talk about as far as accomplishments in your life. You made that point. It is very, very clear. And yes, I do sort of feel sorry for you.

They're not the only accomplishments I have, but they are verifiable. I could just make up my accomplishments like you do. Then again, I'm not exposed as a liar as often as you are.

 

[rdean]

Republicans have more important things to do.

Like create scandals out of the IRS and Benghazi and gun running and other things they started.

 

[Rshermr]

So, AmazonTanya (based on your chosen name, I assume you must be an adolescent??) says:

You said oil companies control the supply, but the Laws of Supply and Demand doesn't apply. If you weren't so bad at English, you would understand that you are ultimately saying Oil Companies are not directly effecting oil prices by using oil supply to influence oil demand.

So which is it? Are they influencing supply and demand or aren't they. Think before you answer.

If you had a clue, you would understand that was EXACTLY what I said. Lets see if you can follow, my poor logic challenged tool:
1. You made the statement that supply and demand largely control the price of gas.
2. I made the statement that gas demand is down, and gas supply is up. And that should mean a lower price of gas, if you believe gas prices are market driven.
3. But you see, gas prices rose largely during this period of high supply and low demand. Now, if you think about it, that is backwards. Must not be controlled by supply and demand.
4. So I said nothing about oil companies using oil supply to control price. They obviously have not, since the price is going in the wrong direction.
5. So, dipshit, what is controlling the price of gas??? Why, the oil companies. Because they have extensive monopoly power.

Now I know that this has required several arguments, and that may be beyond you. But there was no contradiction. Dipshit.


.................................

Exxon, Shell and Philips are local oil companies. Multi-international just means they operate in more than one country. This doesn't change the fact that these countries are based in the United States.

Jesus. Exxon is us based. BP is UK based. Shell is Dutch based. I did not say that they are multi-internationals. How many internationals do you think that entails. Many internationals??? What I said, of course, was that they are multi-nationals. They do as much business or more outside of the US than in the US. I will have to check on those multi internationals. Maybe it is a new word in your dictionary.

Also, they don't have hundreds of thousands of employees. They barely have that many by a combined total. Is anyone really suppose to believe that you have 'worked with the oil folks?' I think you better stop making things up about yourself before I expose you as another wannabe in an industry you really are clueless about.

Sorry, me dear, Exxon alone has over 70K employees. Look it up before you make stupid statements. There are indeed hundreds of thousands. I am not sure what anyone is "suppose" to do. Because, of course, "really suppose" is nonsensical.
Nice to see you are impressed with me saying I worked with folks in the oil industry. If you want to call me a liar, lets make it worth your time. You put up $10K in trust, I'll do the same. And I will introduce you to a few oil folk who I have worked with. If I can't produce you make $10K. If I can, I make $10K. You seem sure of yourself, so lets have a go at it.

The constant is that insignificant little people always get impressed with little things. And you are obviously a little person.

One man wrote that article. That's not a team. The man isn't even an economist, but an economics professor.

Try again.

Richard H. Thaler (born September 12, 1945) is an American economist and the Ralph and Dorothy Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Richard Thaler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No need to try again. Were you of the opinion that an economics professor is not an economist??? Really??? If you have a PHD in economics, and work in the field, you are an economist. It is not like your field, where you need a whole 70 hours of study and take a 120 question test. You would not even have a clue. Yes, dipshit, any economics professor is an economist. And you are pathetic.

Second, he wrote the article, but used the findings of a number of other economists. You should really stop lying. You know better, assuming you looked at the article. His information was largely from a 41 member panel of well respected economists. You seem to not mind lying, do you, Tanya??
Now, I know you are impressed with the HowstuffWorks.com site. But really, having three references to eia seems to impress you. And there were a couple of other references, also. To a phd economist interested in the subject, HOWSTUFFWORKS.com is a trivial source that they would not bother with. Only people who have invested a whole 70 hours to get a certificate could be smart enough to use a site like that. Hell, even undergrad econ majors would use more and better references than this article had. And, of course, we have NO IDEA of what individual or individuals wrote the piece.

 

[Rshermr]

I'll do the research for you. I already know you're pretty bad at it.



Very sad. Can't even do research without looking like a complete tool.

Do you have a basic understanding of what your are dealing with, now?



Found more internet bloggers and columnist to pass off as experts, I see.

Jesus, you are an idiot. So, I said it was a 120 question test. You said it was a 120 question test. I said it was multiple choice. You corrected me to let me know that it was partly true and false.

You were wrong about more than just the number of questions. The Regulation Portion of the test is it's own test. If you fail this, you fail the entire test, even if you pass the market knowledge portion. Even still, the market knowledge portion -- which makes up 85 questions on the test -- you must obtain 70% correct on this portion as well. You cannot fail one and not the other. You must pass both portions.

You were wrong about many things. You are not as smart as you think you are. But that is nothing new really.



Taking a test and passing it are two different things. The success rate according to FINRA is 43%. And that is just with first time takers.



Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It says 'an excess of 70 hours.' This means one is expected to study far more. Although, someone preparing for the exam is expected to study far less. There are people who don't study at all, which is what contributes to the high failure rate.



But I studied, became certified, started a career and manage other another's money. Whereas a college student just studied, graduated and is currently on the unemployment line.

Employers in the real world want marketable skills, not ignorant opinions such as yours.

Now, if you go to college, you take hundreds of tests at least as large as that one. You are a clown. Jesus. You are so proud of this simple little accomplishment. You must be a very little person.

It's simple, yet you don't have a basic understand of what the exam is about. You've already demonstrated you'd be among the 57% of first-time failures.

Lots of people in college take hundreds of test, and when they graduate they still have zero demonstration of how much they have actually learned and zero marketable skills. Must be why there are so many unemployed college graduates. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a college graduate actually.

A little bitty person with nothing much to talk about as far as accomplishments in your life. You made that point. It is very, very clear. And yes, I do sort of feel sorry for you.

They're not the only accomplishments I have, but they are verifiable. I could just make up my accomplishments like you do. Then again, I'm not exposed as a liar as often as you are.

OK. 72 hours??? It is petty, me dear. Completely petty. And a very minor sort of thing. I see you are very jealous of people who have degrees. I understand. You obviously have accomplished little in your life. Making fun of people who have accomplished something with their lives tells you something about the person doing the making fun. Eh,

Read on. You are calling me a liar. And I never, ever lie. But I offered you the chance. You seem so sure. Put your money where your mouth is, little person.

So, I have a ba in economics, and an mba. Was a svp of a multinational (not multi international) IT company. Smaller company, but worked with really big companies. And another 20 years of similar experience before that. I had way more impressive people working for me than you will ever be. Worked with lots of high level folks in a number of industries. BP in Alaska, as an example. Want to call me a liar??? Put some money on it, if you have any guts. My guess is that you have none. Just a person who spends her time bragging about her little certificate, which she thinks is a big deal. Hell, a real estate salesman has a more rigorous regimen than you did. Jesus, you are a clown.

 

[AmazonTania]

Jesus, you are an idiot. So, I said it was a 120 question test. You said it was a 120 question test. I said it was multiple choice. You corrected me to let me know that it was partly true and false.

You were wrong about more than just the number of questions. The Regulation Portion of the test is it's own test. If you fail this, you fail the entire test, even if you pass the market knowledge portion. Even still, the market knowledge portion -- which makes up 85 questions on the test -- you must obtain 70% correct on this portion as well. You cannot fail one and not the other. You must pass both portions.

You were wrong about many things. You are not as smart as you think you are. But that is nothing new really.



Taking a test and passing it are two different things. The success rate according to FINRA is 43%. And that is just with first time takers.



Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It says 'an excess of 70 hours.' This means one is expected to study far more. Although, someone preparing for the exam is expected to study far less. There are people who don't study at all, which is what contributes to the high failure rate.



But I studied, became certified, started a career and manage other another's money. Whereas a college student just studied, graduated and is currently on the unemployment line.

Employers in the real world want marketable skills, not ignorant opinions such as yours.



It's simple, yet you don't have a basic understand of what the exam is about. You've already demonstrated you'd be among the 57% of first-time failures.

Lots of people in college take hundreds of test, and when they graduate they still have zero demonstration of how much they have actually learned and zero marketable skills. Must be why there are so many unemployed college graduates. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a college graduate actually.

A little bitty person with nothing much to talk about as far as accomplishments in your life. You made that point. It is very, very clear. And yes, I do sort of feel sorry for you.

They're not the only accomplishments I have, but they are verifiable. I could just make up my accomplishments like you do. Then again, I'm not exposed as a liar as often as you are.

OK. 72 hours??? It is petty, me dear. Completely petty. And a very minor sort of thing. I see you are very jealous of people who have degrees. I understand. You obviously have accomplished little in your life. Making fun of people who have accomplished something with their lives tells you something about the person doing the making fun. Eh,

I have two degrees, so no. I am not jealous of anyone with a college degree. They are a dime a dozen and it doesn't actually demonstrate intellectual ability.

Read on. You are calling me a liar. And I never, ever lie. But I offered you the chance. You seem so sure. Put your money where your mouth is, little person.

So, I have a ba in economics, and an mba. Was a svp of a multinational (not multi international) IT company. Smaller company, but worked with really big companies. And another 20 years of similar experience before that. I had way more impressive people working for me than you will ever be. Worked with lots of high level folks in a number of industries. BP in Alaska, as an example. Want to call me a liar??? Put some money on it, if you have any guts. My guess is that you have none. Just a person who spends her time bragging about her little certificate, which she thinks is a big deal. Hell, a real estate salesman has a more rigorous regimen than you did. Jesus, you are a clown.

I have no interest in outing you as a liar. Your post and lack of understand already shows that you are.

 

[Rshermr]

You were wrong about more than just the number of questions. The Regulation Portion of the test is it's own test. If you fail this, you fail the entire test, even if you pass the market knowledge portion. Even still, the market knowledge portion -- which makes up 85 questions on the test -- you must obtain 70% correct on this portion as well. You cannot fail one and not the other. You must pass both portions.

You were wrong about many things. You are not as smart as you think you are. But that is nothing new really.



Taking a test and passing it are two different things. The success rate according to FINRA is 43%. And that is just with first time takers.



Your reading comprehension is abysmal. It says 'an excess of 70 hours.' This means one is expected to study far more. Although, someone preparing for the exam is expected to study far less. There are people who don't study at all, which is what contributes to the high failure rate.



But I studied, became certified, started a career and manage other another's money. Whereas a college student just studied, graduated and is currently on the unemployment line.

Employers in the real world want marketable skills, not ignorant opinions such as yours.



It's simple, yet you don't have a basic understand of what the exam is about. You've already demonstrated you'd be among the 57% of first-time failures.

Lots of people in college take hundreds of test, and when they graduate they still have zero demonstration of how much they have actually learned and zero marketable skills. Must be why there are so many unemployed college graduates. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a college graduate actually.



They're not the only accomplishments I have, but they are verifiable. I could just make up my accomplishments like you do. Then again, I'm not exposed as a liar as often as you are.

OK. 72 hours??? It is petty, me dear. Completely petty. And a very minor sort of thing. I see you are very jealous of people who have degrees. I understand. You obviously have accomplished little in your life. Making fun of people who have accomplished something with their lives tells you something about the person doing the making fun. Eh,

I have two degrees, so no. I am not jealous of anyone with a college degree. They are a dime a dozen and it doesn't actually demonstrate intellectual ability.

Read on. You are calling me a liar. And I never, ever lie. But I offered you the chance. You seem so sure. Put your money where your mouth is, little person.

So, I have a ba in economics, and an mba. Was a svp of a multinational (not multi international) IT company. Smaller company, but worked with really big companies. And another 20 years of similar experience before that. I had way more impressive people working for me than you will ever be. Worked with lots of high level folks in a number of industries. BP in Alaska, as an example. Want to call me a liar??? Put some money on it, if you have any guts. My guess is that you have none. Just a person who spends her time bragging about her little certificate, which she thinks is a big deal. Hell, a real estate salesman has a more rigorous regimen than you did. Jesus, you are a clown.

I have no interest in outing you as a liar. Your post and lack of understand already shows that you are.

You have no interest in outing me because, me dear, you could not. Because I never, ever lie. I am wrong from time to time, but I never lie. You made the accusations. If I make an accusation, I have the integrity to stand behind it or apologize, You have the opportunity. But you have no integrity. But you slink away. Cheap little person.
So, still think the

 

[AmazonTania]

So, AmazonTanya (based on your chosen name, I assume you must be an adolescent??) says:

Forget the fact that you can't spell my name correctly. It's not my chosen name, it's my birth name. What is your real name?

If you had a clue, you would understand that was EXACTLY what I said. Lets see if you can follow, my poor logic challenged tool:
1. You made the statement that supply and demand largely control the price of gas.

The conversation was about oil prices. Not gas prices. As I have already said, they are determined by different metrics.

2. I made the statement that gas demand is down, and gas supply is up. And that should mean a lower price of gas, if you believe gas prices are market driven.
3. But you see, gas prices rose largely during this period of high supply and low demand. Now, if you think about it, that is backwards. Must not be controlled by supply and demand.
4. So I said nothing about oil companies using oil supply to control price. They obviously have not, since the price is going in the wrong direction.

Yes, you did. You said it here:

1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.

5. So, dipshit, what is controlling the price of gas??? Why, the oil companies. Because they have extensive monopoly power.

Again, the price of gas is not determine by oil companies. Oil companies are in the business of oil refining and oil exploration. This only makes up 10% of what gas prices are. 68% of gas prices is based on the price of crude oil and the price of crude oil is based on supply, demand, and form of market sentiment.

But then again, you know this because you make up phony credentials of who you are online.

Now I know that this has required several arguments, and that may be beyond you. But there was no contradiction. Dipshit.

You did contradict yourself. You are just not smart enough to understand the contradiction.

Jesus. Exxon is us based. BP is UK based. Shell is Dutch based.

Shell is based in Houston, Texas. If you are talking about the main corporation, they are based in the Netherlands. Fix your reading comprehension.

I did not say that they are multi-internationals. How many internationals do you think that entails. Many internationals??? What I said, of course, was that they are multi-nationals. They do as much business or more outside of the US than in the US. I will have to check on those multi internationals. Maybe it is a new word in your dictionary.

They're the same thing, you most likely retarded individual...

A multinational corporation (MNC) or multinational enterprise (MNE)[1] is a corporation that is registered in more than one country or that has operations in more than one country. It is a large corporation which both produces and sells goods or services in various countries.[2] It can also be referred to as an international corporation.

Multinational corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course, you know this with your faux background in economics, you aren't aware that the term can be used the same way...

Sorry, me dear, Exxon alone has over 70K employees. Look it up before you make stupid statements. There are indeed hundreds of thousands. I am not sure what anyone is "suppose" to do. Because, of course, "really suppose" is nonsensical.

70,000 employees is not hundreds of thousands. Neither is the 22,000 Shell has. Combined, as I have already said, they barely make a hundred thousand It's probably best you check your grammar, then you'll realise that 'hundreds of thousands' is plural. 100,000 is not hundreds of thousands. Check your math.

Nice to see you are impressed with me saying I worked with folks in the oil industry. If you want to call me a liar, lets make it worth your time. You put up $10K in trust, I'll do the same. And I will introduce you to a few oil folk who I have worked with. If I can't produce you make $10K. If I can, I make $10K. You seem sure of yourself, so lets have a go at it.

The constant is that insignificant little people always get impressed with little things. And you are obviously a little person.

I have some clients who are part of the oil industry. That's not really impressive. What is impressive are the lengths you are willing to go just to prove who you are not. If you are so concerned about no one believing you, then email your credentials so people can verify them.

Richard H. Thaler (born September 12, 1945) is an American economist and the Ralph and Dorothy Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
Richard Thaler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No need to try again. Were you of the opinion that an economics professor is not an economist??? Really??? If you have a PHD in economics, and work in the field, you are an economist. It is not like your field, where you need a whole 70 hours of study and take a 120 question test. You would not even have a clue. Yes, dipshit, any economics professor is an economist. And you are pathetic.

You said it was a team of economist. The article is write by one person. Good to know that you have admitted that you blatantly lied.

Second, he wrote the article, but used the findings of a number of other economists. You should really stop lying. You know better, assuming you looked at the article. His information was largely from a 41 member panel of well respected economists. You seem to not mind lying, do you, Tanya??

His information is based on consensus, not facts.

Now, I know you are impressed with the HowstuffWorks.com site. But really, having three references to eia seems to impress you. And there were a couple of other references, also. To a phd economist interested in the subject, HOWSTUFFWORKS.com is a trivial source that they would not bother with. Only people who have invested a whole 70 hours to get a certificate could be smart enough to use a site like that. Hell, even undergrad econ majors would use more and better references than this article had.

And still, your evidence doesn't refute mine in the slightest. If you want to provide evidence, instead of opinion pieces, you can do that. I don't waste my time debating intellectual fallacies.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, of course, we have NO IDEA of what individual or individuals wrote the piece.

The author's name is on the top of the article. You're very bad at reading.

 

[AmazonTania]

OK. 72 hours??? It is petty, me dear. Completely petty. And a very minor sort of thing. I see you are very jealous of people who have degrees. I understand. You obviously have accomplished little in your life. Making fun of people who have accomplished something with their lives tells you something about the person doing the making fun. Eh,

I have two degrees, so no. I am not jealous of anyone with a college degree. They are a dime a dozen and it doesn't actually demonstrate intellectual ability.

Read on. You are calling me a liar. And I never, ever lie. But I offered you the chance. You seem so sure. Put your money where your mouth is, little person.

So, I have a ba in economics, and an mba. Was a svp of a multinational (not multi international) IT company. Smaller company, but worked with really big companies. And another 20 years of similar experience before that. I had way more impressive people working for me than you will ever be. Worked with lots of high level folks in a number of industries. BP in Alaska, as an example. Want to call me a liar??? Put some money on it, if you have any guts. My guess is that you have none. Just a person who spends her time bragging about her little certificate, which she thinks is a big deal. Hell, a real estate salesman has a more rigorous regimen than you did. Jesus, you are a clown.

I have no interest in outing you as a liar. Your post and lack of understand already shows that you are.

You have no interest in outing me because, me dear, you could not. Because I never, ever lie. I am wrong from time to time, but I never lie. You made the accusations. If I make an accusation, I have the integrity to stand behind it or apologize, You have the opportunity. But you have no integrity. But you slink away. Cheap little person.
So, still think the

I have no interest because I have better things to do with my time than to on-up other losers on an internet forum. You're the one who wants to badly show that you have some sort of credibility. If you want to show you are credible so bad that you are willing to make a bet with a total stranger. You're very insecure.

But of course, you can end all of this insecurity by emailing your credentials.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tanya says:
I have no interest because I have better things to do with my time than one-upping losings on an internet forum.

What is a losing?? Another new word??

You're the one who wants to badly show that you have some sort of credibility. If you want to show you are credible so bad that you are willing to make a bet with a total stranger. You're very insecure.

Now let me understand this: You call me a liar, and say you do not want to take my bet?? The bet is NO PROBLEM for me. You made the attack on my credibility. I did not ask you to do so. So, you make the accusations, then you slink away. And you call me insecure?? Sorry, Amazon. Again, you do not pass the giggle test. If you had any self confidence, you would not back away. If you had any integrity, you would not make accusations that you can not prove.

 

[AmazonTania]

Now let me understand this: You call me a liar, and say you do not want to take my bet?? The bet is NO PROBLEM for me.

Then if you are what you are claiming to be, then you would just prove it. You don't need to bet me anything. The only one who actually cares about your credentials are you. I'm just calling you out on your ignorance, while point out how you should know this stuff. Apparently, you haven't gotten your money's worth.

You made the attack on my credibility. I did not ask you to do so. So, you make the accusations, then you slink away. And you call me insecure?? Sorry, Amazon. Again, you do not pass the giggle test.

People who have worked close to the oil industry, know how oil prices work. People with an MBA actually know what a Series 3 is. You don't understand neither, and I had to explain it to you. The only one diminishing your own credibility is you.

If you had any self confidence, you would not back away. If you had any integrity, you would not make accusations that you can not prove.

I'm already proving it by showing your abject ignorance on the subject matter. Of course, you're only able to fool those with very limited understanding of economics, which are most people in this forum.

 

[Rshermr]

It's not my chosen name, it's my birth name. What is your real name?

Amazon??? You have to be kidding. If they named you amazon, my condolences. Tanya is fine. It was calling yourself amazon that I find adolescent.

Again, the price of gas is not determine by oil companies. Oil companies are in the business of oil refining and oil exploration. This only makes up 10% of what gas prices are. 68% of gas prices is based on the price of crude oil and the price of crude oil is based on supply, demand, and form of market sentiment.

So you believe. And an expert like you, having passed a 120 question test, must be correct. You are a con. Cons always believe what they want to believe. But you are wrong.

But then again, you know this because you make up phony credentials of who you are online.

And like a con, you revert to personal attack. And like a tiny little person, you will not take the bet to prove your point.



Jesus. Exxon is us based. BP is UK based. Shell is Dutch based.

S

hell is based in Houston, Texas. If you are talking about the main corporation, they are based in the Netherlands. Fix your reading comprehension.

I suspect that you are unaware that you just agreed with me. We were talking about corporate headquarters. So, Exxon is based in Texas. Shell is part of Royal Dutch Shell. They are a dutch country, me dear. Which means, dipshit, that they are headquartered in the Netherlands.


So, I said the following: I did not say that they are multi-internationals. How many internationals do you think that entails. Many internationals??? What I said, of course, was that they are multi-nationals. They do as much business or more outside of the US than in the US. I will have to check on those multi internationals. Maybe it is a new word in your dictionary.

They're the same thing, you most likely retarded individual...

Sorry. You loose. Multinational is the same as international. Multinational is not the same as multiinternational. Nice try at a really obvious lie. Multiinternational is not a word, dipshit.

A multinational corporation (MNC) or multinational enterprise (MNE)[1] is a corporation that is registered in more than one country or that has operations in more than one country. It is a large corporation which both produces and sells goods or services in various countries.[2] It can also be referred to as an international corporation.

Multinational corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But of course, you know this with your faux background in economics, you aren't aware that the term can be used the same way...

Nice try, ms. dishonest con. You said "multi-international". You then showed me that multi national is the same as international. Nice attempt at getting one past. Really, a little honesty
would be of value.

70,000 employees is not hundreds of thousands. Neither is the 22,000 Shell has. Combined, as I have already said, they barely make a hundred thousand It's probably best you check your grammar, then you'll realise that 'hundreds of thousands' is plural. 100,000 is not hundreds of thousands. Check your math.

Jesus, you lie a lot. EXxon 77,000, Royal Dutch Shell 96,000, BP 80,000, Phillips Petrolium 30,000. Are we past 200,000 yet??? Maybe you should check your math.

I have some clients who are part of the oil industry. That's not really impressive. What is impressive are the lengths you are willing to go just to prove who you are not. If you are so concerned about no one believing you, then email your credentials so people can verify them.

Well, my poor little person, I could care less what you believe. But if you are going to make personal attacks, have the class to show up. $10K if you can find a lie I have told about myself.

You said it was a team of economist. The article is write by one person. Good to know that you have admitted that you blatantly lied.

I said, me dear, that the author worked with a team of economists. I did not say that a team of economists wrote the article. Did you think that I believe that 41 economists wrote a two page article?? Sorry, but that does not pass the giggle test. So, it is funny that you lie, then call me a liar. Not very classy, amazon.

Second, he wrote the article, but used the findings of a number of other economists.

You should really stop lying. You know better, assuming you looked at the article. His information was largely from a 41 member panel of well respected economists. You seem to not mind lying, do you, Tanya??

His information is based on consensus, not facts.

Now that is a really stupid statement. Economists, you believe, come to consensus based on something other than facts???
You know, if I am obviously wrong, and know I am, I admit it. Always. You said the author was not an economist. Interesting how you skirt that little error. Are you ready to admit that he is an economist??? Not that it matters what you think, just wondered if you had any integrity at all.

And still, your evidence doesn't refute mine in the slightest. If you want to provide evidence, instead of opinion pieces, you can do that. I don't waste my time debating intellectual fallacies.

Good for you. You said you had two degrees?? In what??? At what level??? If I ever used a source like howstuffworks, I would have been laughed out of my class.

The author's name is on the top of the article. You're very bad at reading.

Not the NAME, dipshit. What is his expertise. Who is he.
Yes, Patrick E. George. If you look up my reference, using a simple Google search, you will see multiple hits all referring to him as a respected economist. If you do a search on Patrick E. George, the only thing you will find are a very few references to articles on howstuffworks.com. Things like solar panels, solar paint, and other things totally unrelated to the price of gas. Or oil, for that matter. Get a grip, for christ sake. You are looking like a complete idiot. I am really starting to feel sorry for you. If you would stop your ignorant attack, I would just leave you alone.

 

[AmazonTania]

It's not my chosen name, it's my birth name. What is your real name?

Amazon??? You have to be kidding. If they named you amazon, my condolences. Tanya is fine. It was calling yourself amazon that I find adolescent.

Tania is my name, simpleton. Never-mind the fact that you can't even spell it correctly.

So you believe. And an expert like you, having passed a 120 question test, must be correct. You are a con. Cons always believe what they want to believe. But you are wrong.

This is according to the EIA.

The national average retail price of a gallon of regular gasoline in March 2013 was $3.71. The four main components of the retail price and approximate shares of the total price were:

• Crude Oil: 63%. The cost of crude oil as a share of the retail price varies over time and among regions of the country. Refiners paid an average of about $98.00 per barrel of crude oil, or about $2.34 per gallon, in March 2013.
• Refining Costs and Profits: 16%
• Distribution, Marketing, and Retail Costs and Profits: 10%
• Taxes: 11%. Federal excise taxes were 18.4 cents per gallon and state excise taxes averaged 23.47 cents per gallon.

What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

As you can see only 16% of Refining Cost and Profits only make up the portion of what are gas prices. But apparently, you've 'Worked With The Oil Folks.' Somehow, you don't know how gas prices work, what determines them and you don't know that what determines gas prices is different from what determines oil prices.

Yeah, you're real credible.

And like a con, you revert to personal attack.

Personal attacks such as:

5. So, dipshit, what is controlling the price of gas???

Now I know that this has required several arguments, and that may be beyond you. But there was no contradiction. Dipshit.

And like a tiny little person, you will not take the bet to prove your point.

Jesus, you are an idiot.

I didn't know MBA candidates has such horrible memory skills.

And like a tiny little person, you will not take the bet to prove your point.

You're the one who seems offended that someone would actually question your credentials based on what you don't seem to know. I don't need to bet anyone. If this is so important to you, provide a resume or LinkedIN page. Otherwise, you really should stop using phony credentials online.

It's an online forum, and I really don't know what you are trying to prove.

I suspect that you are unaware that you just agreed with me. We were talking about corporate headquarters. So, Exxon is based in Texas. Shell is part of Royal Dutch Shell. They are a dutch country, me dear. Which means, dipshit, that they are headquartered in the Netherlands.

Royal Dutch acquired Shell Transport Company. Shell is a subsidiary of Royal Dutch. They're two different companies. Shell -- which is what you referred to it as -- is based in Houston, Texas.

If you are talking about Royal Dutch, perhaps you should be more specific. I didn't know MBA candidates could be so terrible at English as well.

Sorry. You loose. Multinational is the same as international. Multinational is not the same as multiinternational. Nice try at a really obvious lie. Multiinternational is not a word, dipshit.

Nice try, ms. dishonest con. You said "multi-international". You then showed me that multi national is the same as international. Nice attempt at getting one past. Really, a little honesty would be of value.

You're playing semantics. They're all the same thing, regardless of what terms you are using. If you type in multi-international in a search engine, the very first result which will appear is the definition of multinational. You. Are. Wrong.

Jesus, you lie a lot. EXxon 77,000, Royal Dutch Shell 96,000, BP 80,000, Phillips Petrolium 30,000. Are we past 200,000 yet??? Maybe you should check your math.

Maybe you should check your memory. You were comparing Exxon, Shell, BP and Philips, Not Royal Dutch Shell... Again, Shell is still an independent business with it's own revenue stream, it's own profits, and it's own employees from that of Royal Dutch.

Exxon, or BP, or Phillips, or Shell are not local distributors. Jesus, that was a stupid comparison. They are multinational corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees.

Shell (22,000) + British Petroleum (85,000) + ExxonMobile (76,000) + Philips 66 (14,000) = 197,000. Not above 200,000. And once again, not hundred's of thousands as you suggested. Your math is totally wrong.

I thought you had to be good at math to be an MBA candidate.

Well, my poor little person, I could care less what you believe. But if you are going to make personal attacks, have the class to show up. $10K if you can find a lie I have told about myself.

Only you would consider question on your credentials a personal attack. You are the one you brought it up and I am point out that your knowledge doesn't reflect your credentials. You don't even know that Shell and Royal Dutch are two different companies, each with their own separate employees. And apparently, you've 'Worked With The Oil Folks.'

Laughable. Anytime you wish to actually prove your credentials -- which is what you are so desperately trying to do -- you can do so.

I said, me dear, that the author worked with a team of economists. I did not say that a team of economists wrote the article. Did you think that I believe that 41 economists wrote a two page article?? Sorry, but that does not pass the giggle test. So, it is funny that you lie, then call me a liar. Not very classy, amazon.

Yes, I actually do think you are that dumb...

Hardly. If you read the article, you would see it is the opinion of a team of well respected Economists. See the difference? One man, versus a team of well respected economists. It is not hard, if you try. I try not to use unqualified sources. I leave that to you.

Now that is a really stupid statement. Economists, you believe, come to consensus based on something other than facts???

Consensus is when the facts are determined based on how many individuals in a particular community agree, rather than the evidence presented. You're really so dumb, you don't even understand what consensus means. Did get that lesson in your MBA training courses?

You know, if I am obviously wrong, and know I am, I admit it. Always. You said the author was not an economist. Interesting how you skirt that little error. Are you ready to admit that he is an economist??? Not that it matters what you think, just wondered if you had any integrity at all.

According to the blog and other sources, he is just an economist professor. Your wikipedia page is the only source which refers to him as an economist. Being that any level degree is required to be an economist, anyone can be an economist.

Good for you. You said you had two degrees?? In what??? At what level??? If I ever used a source like howstuffworks, I would have been laughed out of my class.

This is an online forum. Not a classroom or academia journal. You've used DaveManual.com, a personal blog so you are just calling the kettle black. And I have had no problem with that, until you started calling it 'statistical data.'

Of course, I'm suppose to believe you have an MBA using a personal blog as statistical data. Laughable.

And somehow, you have used a New York Times article, and that is acceptable material? I could have sworn MBA candidates understood how to use their sources better. Perhaps you need a refreshers course on how to look for sources.

Not the NAME, dipshit. What is his expertise. Who is he.
Yes, Patrick E. George. If you look up my reference, using a simple Google search, you will see multiple hits all referring to him as a respected economist. If you do a search on Patrick E. George, the only thing you will find are a very few references to articles on howstuffworks.com. Things like solar panels, solar paint, and other things totally unrelated to the price of gas. Or oil, for that matter. Get a grip, for christ sake. You are looking like a complete idiot. I am really starting to feel sorry for you. If you would stop your ignorant attack, I would just leave you alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Again, your reference does not refute mine in the slightest. If you are willing to show something which does, I'll take it under consideration. Other than that, you are passing off another ignorant fallacy as factual.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon says:

You're playing semantics. They're all the same thing, regardless of what terms you are using. If you type in multi-international in a search engine, the very first result which will appear is the definition of multinational. You. Are. Wrong.

Jesus, keep trying. Multi-international is not a word. That would mean it isw NOT A SEMANTICS ISSUE. As always, if any search engine can not find the word, it finds the closest thing to it. So, by typing in multi-international, you got:
1. Multinational, and international. But Alas, no multi-international
2. Multi Corporation International Ltd. The name of a company. But Alas, no multi-international.
3. Multi Corp International Inc. The name of a company, again. But alas, no multi-international.
You see, hard as you try to lie your way through this one, there is no such word. Multi-international is not a word. Does not exist in your searches. And does not exist in a dictionary. Only exists in your own mind.

Now, a person with integrity might say "my mistake. I meant multi-national." But instead, you go on and on trying to prove a made up word exists in the english language. It does not. Your own little exercise in research showed that it is not a word. Go look up integrity.

Maybe you should check your memory. You were comparing Exxon, Shell, BP and Philips, Not Royal Dutch Shell... Again, Shell is still an independent business with it's own revenue stream, it's own profits, and it's own employees from that of Royal Dutch.

We were comparing nothing. Maybe you were, I certainly was not. I said, quite plainly, that there were hundreds of thousands working for the major oil companies. I named a few. And Shell is not an indipendent business, but a subsidiary. Here is an actual definition: Shell Oil Company is the United States-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell.
Shell Oil Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I know that you are working as hard as you can to make the number you are working with come in under 200,000. And, by making shell the company you want to use, it does. But it is simply your little word game. Again, me dear, there are hundreds of thousands of people that work for the major oil companies in the world. We have not yet even examined the biggest. But, you are wrong again, of course. Shell is only an independent company in your own mind. Go look up the word subsidiary. And go look up NOT ROYAL DUTCH. BUT ROYAL DUTCH SHELL.

Consensus is when the facts are determined based on how many individuals in a particular community agree, rather than the evidence presented. You're really so dumb, you don't even understand what consensus means. Did get that lesson in your MBA training courses?

Consensus is based on something, Amazon. What do you think it is based on??? The position of the moon??? Consensus of 41 economists is not a simple vote, but rather opinion based on facts. Based on where it came from, any consensus may have a great deal of validity, of very little. I see that you believe that the consensus of 41 accomplished economists is simply a vote based on nothing at all. I think it is of value, because the sources (41 economists) are a likely knowledgeable source. You prefer to believe it is not. Good for you. So, you believe a single individual who writes an article is not basing it on his best opinion? Jesus. You try so hard to disprove the obvious.

According to the blog and other sources, he is just an economist professor. Your wikipedia page is the only source which refers to him as an economist. Being that any level degree is required to be an economist, anyone can be an economist.

No, not an economist professor. An economics professor. That is his profession. So, here you try to insult the credentials of a person because you do not like what he said. And you do so by lying. So, you said that only one sourse refers to him as an economist???

1. Richard H. Thaler (born September 12, 1945) is an American economist
Richard Thaler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. He has served as Vice President of the American Economics Association.
Richard H Thaler | The University of Chicago Booth School of Business
3. Interview with Richard Thaler. This is the eighth in a series of interviews with Chicago School economists
Interview with Richard Thaler : The New Yorker
4. BBC HARDtalk - Richard Thaler - Behavioural economist (9/10/12)
BBC HardTALK·
5. If there's one thing to know about world-renowned behavioral economist Richard Thaler.....
Profile: Richard Thaler, University of Chicago Booth School of Business professor - Chicago Tribune

And we could go on and on and on. Tens, if not hundreds, of references to Richard Thaler as an economist. So, what you are proving is what I said before. Cons like you tend to believe what they want to believe. Thaler is an economist. And anyone with a phd in economics teaching economics is an economist.

You just wasted another 10 minutes of my time with efforts to prove what you want to believe with untruths and made up words. Jesus. I can not get those 10 minutes back.

 

[Moonglow]

gas prices are high because of one gear in the machine not working well, Refineries are the gear not working.

 

[Rshermr]

And Amazon says:

Originally Posted by Rshermr
Now let me understand this: You call me a liar, and say you do not want to take my bet?? The bet is NO PROBLEM for me.

Then if you are what you are claiming to be, then you would just prove it. You don't need to bet me anything. The only one who actually cares about your credentials are you. I'm just calling you out on your ignorance, while point out how you should know this stuff. Apparently, you haven't gotten your money's worth.

I gave you an opportunity. Sorry you do not have the guts to take it. But, whatever. I can say anything on this blog. You can say anything on this blog. Hard to prove anyone is lying. But really, really easy to attack them by saying they are lying. Tacky. But easy. And easy to then say that they do not see any need to take the bet and prove or disprove the accusation. Sending you something by email proves NOTHING. Because you would just go on insulting and making accusations. Because that is what cons do. And you are a con.
Lets see how far your post goes before the next insult or attack.

Quote:
You made the attack on my credibility. I did not ask you to do so. So, you make the accusations, then you slink away. And you call me insecure?? Sorry, Amazon. Again, you do not pass the giggle test.

People who have worked close to the oil industry, know how oil prices work. People with an MBA actually know what a Series 3 is. You don't understand neither, and I had to explain it to you. The only one diminishing your own credibility is you.

**** Did not take long for the first attack.
Yes, you are correct. I do not understand "neither". And, as that would indicate, I do understand both. I know what a series 3 is, me dear. And I know you think it is really complex. Because you want to. But it really quite simple. And you have not explained anything relative to oil prices to me that I did not know. The topic is gas prices, by the way You keep changing the subject.


Quote:
If you had any self confidence, you would not back away. If you had any integrity, you would not make accusations that you can not prove.

I'm already proving it by showing your abject ignorance on the subject matter. Of course, you're only able to fool those with very limited understanding of economics, which are most people in this forum.

***** And here she goes again. More insults and attacks.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion. A person who says a phd economist that teaches economics at a highly respected university, shows how little they know of economics. And then has the guts to say someone else does not understand economics. Which proves you to be: 1. Stupid. 2. Totally lacking in class. 3. Without any integrity at all. And yes, that was an attack. But simply returning fire.

 

[tjvh]

gas prices are high because of one gear in the machine not working well, Refineries are the gear not working.

Correct. And why are they not working? Because environmental Law has made it impossible to build new ones.