ideas for vetting, revised

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There are a lot more choices foreigners have with our dollars besides:

1) burn it

2) spend it in the USA, so it is never never lost

-------------------------------------------------------------------
They can also:

3) Buy gas driving up prices.

dear this is economics which you lack the IQ for. IF they buy gas then those in the middle east have the dollar and then then have to spend it here or burn it!! either way it is always heading back to the USA, not lost for god's sake.

4) Invest in their countries manufacturing & education.

too stupid!!! they would have to convert it to Yen or Yuan to spend it in their own country

Yet another spastic retarded post from eddie the dumb-ass.

."

of course if it was retarded th eliberal would not be so afraid to say exactly why?? What does your fear tell us??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear this is economics which you lack the IQ for. IF they buy gas then those in the middle east have the dollar and then then have to spend it here or burn it!! either way it is always heading back to the USA, not lost for god's sake.



too stupid!!! they would have to convert it to Yen or Yuan to spend it in their own country

Yet another spastic retarded post from eddie the dumb-ass.

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

Back in the day there was basic "petrodollar recycling". All crude oil around the world was only sold in US dollars. We bought oil with dollars from Iran & they bought wheat or manufactured goods from US with those dollars or bought our debt. If China wanted oil they had to sell US something to get US dollars to buy oil from the middle east who would in turn spend those dollars right back here in the US. Since all countries needed US dollars for oil trade it naturally became the worlds reserve currency. Countries central banks bought & held US dollars to back their currency & to manipulate their currency up or down. We were firmly in control of world oil & commodity prices.

Recently China has the manufacturing & owns resources around the world. When China buys oil from Saudi Arabia driving up oil prices & demand. Saudi bi-passes the USA & buys manufactured goods from China. In return China buys more oil with those US dollars again from Saudi driving up oil prices even more & the cycle continues while we stand here with our thumb up our ass.

Now China has more automobiles than US making them the worlds largest oil customer. Now since we are no longer their biggest customer or trading partner the world oil suppliers are more concerned with China than the USA. Oil producers are making deals in Chinese currency instead of US dollars. We are losing the "petro-dollar" & "world reserve currency" leverage. We are also losing the ability to control oil & commodity prices.

Cutting our consumption & sending production asset's & jobs to China cost US dollar leverage. I love how Ross Perot put it in the presidential debate with Al Gore. "...the United States, 85 percent. We're the biggest buyer of goods and services in the world. Please remember that tonight, that's one of our aces."

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

That's awful, we send them green pieces of paper and they send us nice stuff.

Why is that awful?

yes the liberal would have us believe its awlful. In reality if the money never came back we could just print as much as we liked and buy everything from Japan and China and all of America could retire today!!

 

[KissMy]

dear this is economics which you lack the IQ for. IF they buy gas then those in the middle east have the dollar and then then have to spend it here or burn it!! either way it is always heading back to the USA, not lost for god's sake.

too stupid!!! they would have to convert it to Yen or Yuan to spend it in their own country

Yet another spastic retarded post from eddie the dumb-ass.

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

Back in the day there was basic "petrodollar recycling". All crude oil around the world was only sold in US dollars. We bought oil with dollars from Iran & they bought wheat or manufactured goods from US with those dollars or bought our debt. If China wanted oil they had to sell US something to get US dollars to buy oil from the middle east who would in turn spend those dollars right back here in the US. Since all countries needed US dollars for oil trade it naturally became the worlds reserve currency. Countries central banks bought & held US dollars to back their currency & to manipulate their currency up or down. We were firmly in control of world oil & commodity prices.

Recently China has the manufacturing & owns resources around the world. When China buys oil from Saudi Arabia driving up oil prices & demand. Saudi bi-passes the USA & buys manufactured goods from China. In return China buys more oil with those US dollars again from Saudi driving up oil prices even more & the cycle continues while we stand here with our thumb up our ass.

Now China has more automobiles than US making them the worlds largest oil customer. Now since we are no longer their biggest customer or trading partner the world oil suppliers are more concerned with China than the USA. Oil producers are making deals in Chinese currency instead of US dollars. We are losing the "petro-dollar" & "world reserve currency" leverage. We are also losing the ability to control oil & commodity prices.

Cutting our consumption & sending production asset's & jobs to China cost US dollar leverage. I love how Ross Perot put it in the presidential debate with Al Gore. "...the United States, 85 percent. We're the biggest buyer of goods and services in the world. Please remember that tonight, that's one of our aces."

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

That's awful, we send them green pieces of paper and they send us nice stuff.

Why is that awful?

If they kept it stuffed in their mattress or just bought our debt it would be good for us. But that was not the case. Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset. It cost us a lot to enforce the US Petrodollar. Now we are out of the loop & not getting reimbursed for our efforts.

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yet another spastic retarded post from eddie the dumb-ass.

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

Back in the day there was basic "petrodollar recycling". All crude oil around the world was only sold in US dollars. We bought oil with dollars from Iran & they bought wheat or manufactured goods from US with those dollars or bought our debt. If China wanted oil they had to sell US something to get US dollars to buy oil from the middle east who would in turn spend those dollars right back here in the US. Since all countries needed US dollars for oil trade it naturally became the worlds reserve currency. Countries central banks bought & held US dollars to back their currency & to manipulate their currency up or down. We were firmly in control of world oil & commodity prices.

Recently China has the manufacturing & owns resources around the world. When China buys oil from Saudi Arabia driving up oil prices & demand. Saudi bi-passes the USA & buys manufactured goods from China. In return China buys more oil with those US dollars again from Saudi driving up oil prices even more & the cycle continues while we stand here with our thumb up our ass.

Now China has more automobiles than US making them the worlds largest oil customer. Now since we are no longer their biggest customer or trading partner the world oil suppliers are more concerned with China than the USA. Oil producers are making deals in Chinese currency instead of US dollars. We are losing the "petro-dollar" & "world reserve currency" leverage. We are also losing the ability to control oil & commodity prices.

Cutting our consumption & sending production asset's & jobs to China cost US dollar leverage. I love how Ross Perot put it in the presidential debate with Al Gore. "...the United States, 85 percent. We're the biggest buyer of goods and services in the world. Please remember that tonight, that's one of our aces."

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

That's awful, we send them green pieces of paper and they send us nice stuff.

Why is that awful?

If they kept it stuffed in their mattress or just bought our debt it would be good for us. But that was not the case. Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset. It cost us a lot to enforce the US Petrodollar. Now we are out of the loop & not getting reimbursed for our efforts.

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset.

The people who sold us stuff are using their money to buy stuff.
There oughta be a law against that sort of thing.

The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Drill baby, drill.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

stupid illiterate liberal gibberish. The price of oil and currency exchange rates are determined by supply and demand, not multi nationals or China.

Dumb and illiterate???????????

 

[KissMy]

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

stupid illiterate liberal gibberish. The price of oil and currency exchange rates are determined by supply and demand, not multi nationals or China.

Dumb and illiterate???????????

Petro-currency is determined by largest consumer & supplier. Price is determined by exchange rates with that petro-currency & supply/demand.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Petro-currency is determined by largest consumer & supplier.

illiterate gibberish!! What on earth does that mean?????????

 

[Rshermr]

if there was no trade deficit as a result of the (very few) subsidies, then the money would stay in the country and would circulate as salaries and tax dollars over and over and over again and the money would not ever be lost... theoretically

actually when China or Japan gets a dollar through WalMart or Toyota they have 2 choices in regard to what they do with it:

1) burn it

2) spend it in the USA, so it is never never lost

There are a lot more choices foreigners have with our dollars besides:

1) burn it

2) spend it in the USA, so it is never never lost

-------------------------------------------------------------------
They can also:

3) Buy gas driving up prices.

4) Invest in their countries manufacturing & education.

5) Buy our debt & extract interest from us.

6) Buy our productive asset's.

7) Drive up precious commodities prices.

8) Buy our companies & their patents.

9) Buy more cars & use more gas making them the world's largest oil consumer who can demand suppliers do as they wish like accept their currency instead of US dollars.

Uh Oh. You just exposed ed's total lack of understanding of economics, and his con tool agenda. You are about to be subjected to more of his drivel, and a personal attack. Poor ed just does as he is told, and what he is paid to do.

 

[Rshermr]

"The Federal Reserve estimates that the majority of the cash in circulation today is outside the United States."

That's awful, we send them green pieces of paper and they send us nice stuff.

Why is that awful?

If they kept it stuffed in their mattress or just bought our debt it would be good for us. But that was not the case. Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset. It cost us a lot to enforce the US Petrodollar. Now we are out of the loop & not getting reimbursed for our efforts.

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset.

The people who sold us stuff are using their money to buy stuff.
There oughta be a law against that sort of thing.

The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Drill baby, drill.

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill??? So, we have about 3% of the worlds oil but use about 25%, more or less. So, how do you expect that to work.
We import oil, like crazy. So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it. Maybe I missed it and the world changed, but I have NEVER heard an impartial economist say that there was no problem with the trade deficit. In general, I would have to admit I have never heard of anything more absurd. Except as a conservative talking point. It does, of course, pass the Koch test. They would agree with you, though I suspect it is the other way around.
Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed??? Now, that would NOT pass the Koch test, so I was just wondering. Makes a lot of sense for our future, but not for the future of big oil.

Now, from a point of economic theory, big oil should be an obvious problem for all of us. The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power. Which explains, in total, why the price of gas is increasing while the demand is lower than in years, and supply is higher than in years. And, the revenue spent to bring oil from countries that we do not especially agree with to our gas tanks is great. Yet you seem to support MORE OIL. MORE and MORE and MORE. Which does, indeed, pass the Koch test.

Just wondering.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Uh Oh. You just exposed ed's total lack of understanding of economics, and his con tool agenda.

please say what I don't understand or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so. If you lack the IQ to respond on your own cant you get with a college grad type liberal who can help you????

 

[Rshermr]

Uh Oh. You just exposed ed's total lack of understanding of economics, and his con tool agenda.

please say what I don't understand or admit as a typical liberal you lack the IQ to do so. If you lack the IQ to respond on your own cant you get with a college grad type liberal who can help you????

And why, my poor ignorant con tool, would I want to try to educate you. You can not educate a turnip. And a turnip is smarter than you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If they kept it stuffed in their mattress or just bought our debt it would be good for us. But that was not the case. Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset. It cost us a lot to enforce the US Petrodollar. Now we are out of the loop & not getting reimbursed for our efforts.

Now that multi-nationals have made China rich & the #1 oil customer, they call the shots on petro-currency. The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Our US dollars were circulating mostly outside our country buying up oil that we have fought hard to ensure was only a US dollar denominated asset.

The people who sold us stuff are using their money to buy stuff.
There oughta be a law against that sort of thing.

The US dollar is getting sidelined, so we get less oil from those green pieces of paper.

Drill baby, drill.

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill??? So, we have about 3% of the worlds oil but use about 25%, more or less. So, how do you expect that to work.
We import oil, like crazy. So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it. Maybe I missed it and the world changed, but I have NEVER heard an impartial economist say that there was no problem with the trade deficit. In general, I would have to admit I have never heard of anything more absurd. Except as a conservative talking point. It does, of course, pass the Koch test. They would agree with you, though I suspect it is the other way around.
Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed??? Now, that would NOT pass the Koch test, so I was just wondering. Makes a lot of sense for our future, but not for the future of big oil.

Now, from a point of economic theory, big oil should be an obvious problem for all of us. The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power. Which explains, in total, why the price of gas is increasing while the demand is lower than in years, and supply is higher than in years. And, the revenue spent to bring oil from countries that we do not especially agree with to our gas tanks is great. Yet you seem to support MORE OIL. MORE and MORE and MORE. Which does, indeed, pass the Koch test.

Just wondering.

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill???

Only a moron would think that increasing our supply is a bad idea.
Oh, right, there you are.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.

What's the trade deficit? Why should I have a problem with it?

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???

You bet. Find an alternative energy source cheaper than oil and I'll support it all the way.
If it's more expensive and needs taxpayer subsidies, I'll have to point out your liberal idiocy.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.

Ohhhhh, there's that liberal idiocy of your's again.

Yet you seem to support MORE OIL.

Yes, drill baby drill.

 

[Rshermr]

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill???

Only a moron would think that increasing our supply is a bad idea.
Oh, right, there you are.

Right. Nice attempt at an insult, right out of the gate. So, me boy, what I was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%. So, drilling at 3% is a solution that only a fool would find rational. Nothing wrong with drilling, but just do not expect to change the oil supply equation much. But do expect to pay lots, and love the military costs to keep the oil flowing from some very unsavory partners.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.

What's the trade deficit? Why should I have a problem with it?

Very funny. You know what the trade deficit is. And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of Saudi Arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more GNP.

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???

You bet. Find an alternative energy source cheaper than oil and I'll support it all the way.
If it's more expensive and needs taxpayer subsidies, I'll have to point out your liberal idiocy.

Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money. New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines. You will never, ever see an alternative to oil if that is your viewpoint. Unless, of course, we see Phillips Petrolium suddenly developing a new technology. Then I have a hunch you would then change your criteria so fast you would give me whiplash.

Now, I know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the Koch brothers, and you happy, I guess. Really, really stupid, Todd. But right out of the koch play book.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.

Ohhhhh, there's that liberal idiocy of your's again.

Wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue. Obvious mistake on my part.
So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???
I dealt with the Alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the Koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, Todd. Thought you were smarter than that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???

many possible reasons first among them is libturd control of the money supply, libturd environmentalist control of refining, and China,India, and Brazil, putting 30 million new cars on the read each year!

Why? Although the EIA pinned part of the blame on volatility in Venezuela and Nigeria, it warned of an influx of investment money into commodities markets. Investors were stampeding out of the falling real estate and stock markets. Instead, they diverted their funds to oil futures. This sudden surge drove up oil prices, creating a speculative bubble. (Source: EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook)
This bubble soon spread to other commodities. Investor funds swamped wheat, gold and other related futures markets. This speculation drove up food prices dramatically around the world. The result? Food riots in less-developed countries by people facing starvation. (Source: BBC News,Commodity Boom Continues to Roll, January 16, 2008; CNN, Riots, Instability Spread as Food Prices Skyrocket, February 18, 2008)

High oil prices are also driven by a decline in the dollar. Most oil contracts around the world are traded in dollars. As a result, oil-exporting countries usually peg their currency to the dollar. When the dollar declines, so do their oil revenues, but their costs go up. Therefore, OPEC must raise the price of oil to maintain its profit margins and keep costs of imported goods constant. (Source: USA Today,Oil Briefly Spurts Near $104 per Barrel, March 3, 2008)












I dealt with the Alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the Koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, Todd. Thought you were smarter than that.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill???

Only a moron would think that increasing our supply is a bad idea.
Oh, right, there you are.

Right. Nice attempt at an insult, right out of the gate. So, me boy, what I was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%. So, drilling at 3% is a solution that only a fool would find rational. Nothing wrong with drilling, but just do not expect to change the oil supply equation much. But do expect to pay lots, and love the military costs to keep the oil flowing from some very unsavory partners.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.

What's the trade deficit? Why should I have a problem with it?

Very funny. You know what the trade deficit is. And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of Saudi Arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more GNP.

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???

You bet. Find an alternative energy source cheaper than oil and I'll support it all the way.
If it's more expensive and needs taxpayer subsidies, I'll have to point out your liberal idiocy.

Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money. New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines. You will never, ever see an alternative to oil if that is your viewpoint. Unless, of course, we see Phillips Petrolium suddenly developing a new technology. Then I have a hunch you would then change your criteria so fast you would give me whiplash.

Now, I know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the Koch brothers, and you happy, I guess. Really, really stupid, Todd. But right out of the koch play book.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.

Ohhhhh, there's that liberal idiocy of your's again.

Wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue. Obvious mistake on my part.
So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???
I dealt with the Alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the Koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, Todd. Thought you were smarter than that.

So, me boy, what I was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%.

So why don't we produce more and import less?

And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of Saudi Arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more GNP.

Sounds like you're not as dumb as most liberals.
So you agree we should drill, that's great.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must be kidding, eh, Todd???? Drill baby drill???

Only a moron would think that increasing our supply is a bad idea.
Oh, right, there you are.

Right. Nice attempt at an insult, right out of the gate. So, me boy, what I was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%. So, drilling at 3% is a solution that only a fool would find rational. Nothing wrong with drilling, but just do not expect to change the oil supply equation much. But do expect to pay lots, and love the military costs to keep the oil flowing from some very unsavory partners.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.

What's the trade deficit? Why should I have a problem with it?

Very funny. You know what the trade deficit is. And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of Saudi Arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more GNP.

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???

You bet. Find an alternative energy source cheaper than oil and I'll support it all the way.
If it's more expensive and needs taxpayer subsidies, I'll have to point out your liberal idiocy.

Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money. New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines. You will never, ever see an alternative to oil if that is your viewpoint. Unless, of course, we see Phillips Petrolium suddenly developing a new technology. Then I have a hunch you would then change your criteria so fast you would give me whiplash.

Now, I know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the Koch brothers, and you happy, I guess. Really, really stupid, Todd. But right out of the koch play book.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.

Ohhhhh, there's that liberal idiocy of your's again.

Wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue. Obvious mistake on my part.
So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???
I dealt with the Alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the Koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, Todd. Thought you were smarter than that.

Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money.

That is excellent! Private enterprise at work.

New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines.

Jimmy Carter wasted billions in the 70s on synfuel. If it were up to you we'd still have a money losing, taxpayer subsidized boondogle. I guess you love the ethanol mandate?

Now, I know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change

Of course I believe in climate change. I live in Chicago and 11,000 years ago my area was under a mile of ice. I love climate change.

Then there are revenue and jobs.

Yes, revenue and jobs flow from money losing technology. Look at all the jobs and revenue we get from Solyndra.

Wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue.

Oil companies have a monopoly? LOL!
Take an economics class. Better yet, take 3.
Then you can admit your idiotic error.

So, the demand for oil is lower than for years.

I see your lips moving, but all I see coming out are errors.

EIA lifts 2012/2013 world oil demand growth forecasts | Reuters

 

[Rshermr]

you must be kidding, eh, todd???? Drill baby drill???

only a moron would think that increasing our supply is a bad idea.
Oh, right, there you are.

right. Nice attempt at an insult, right out of the gate. So, me boy, what i was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%. So, drilling at 3% is a solution that only a fool would find rational. Nothing wrong with drilling, but just do not expect to change the oil supply equation much. But do expect to pay lots, and love the military costs to keep the oil flowing from some very unsavory partners.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.


Very funny. You know what the trade deficit is. And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of saudi arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more gnp.

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???


Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money. New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines. You will never, ever see an alternative to oil if that is your viewpoint. Unless, of course, we see phillips petrolium suddenly developing a new technology. Then i have a hunch you would then change your criteria so fast you would give me whiplash.

Now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the koch brothers, and you happy, i guess. Really, really stupid, todd. But right out of the koch play book.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.

ohhhhh, there's that liberal idiocy of your's again.

wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue. Obvious mistake on my part.
So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???
I dealt with the alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, todd. Thought you were smarter than that.

was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money.

that is excellent! Private enterprise at work.
not my point. As you well know. So, you hate the computer industry. And the internet. And earthquake technology developed by caltrans and federal government being deployed for nuclear power plants. And you must love fracking. Guess where the technology was developed. All now in the hands of private enterprise. So, why is it just competition for the oil companies that you dislike? We paid for these, and thousands more with our tax dollars. Generally all now making the private industry trillions.

new technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines.

jimmy carter wasted billions in the 70s on synfuel. If it were up to you we'd still have a money losing, taxpayer subsidized boondogle. I guess you love the ethanol mandate?
maybe. Not at all sure of your numbers. A link to that one would be interesting. All of carter's energy programs ended with reagan. Neither you nor i will ever know of the long term results had they been allowed to go forward. Take a look at what china is doing. And germany. And other countries. While we stand pat with oil.

now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change

of course i believe in climate change. I live in chicago and 11,000 years ago my area was under a mile of ice. I love climate change.
i am sure you read my sentence in total, which makes your answer is disingenuous. Tacky.

then there are revenue and jobs.

again, you are taking part of a sentence from what i said. Below is what i said in full:

now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the koch brothers, and you happy, i guess. Really, really stupid, todd. But right out of the koch play book.

yes, revenue and jobs flow from money losing technology. Look at all the jobs and revenue we get from solyndra.
solyndra. The favorite alternative energy example. What you do not say, of course, is that the full group of companies in obamas alternative energy program numbered over 130. So far, less than 1% have failed. Which is a remarkably low number when compared to the start up numbers for all companies. So your point is vacuous. Some were bound to fail, and the program allowed for many more than that. As any venture capitalist would expect.

wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue.

oil companies have a monopoly? Lol!
Take an economics class. Better yet, take 3.
Then you can admit your idiotic error.

Toddster, me boy, you are putting words in my mouth. I said oil companies have considerable monopoly power. Which any econ professor would agree with. You see, toddster, with the exception of natural monopolies, monopolies are not allowed. So, it was no error. What you just said was and idiotic error. Perhaps you coule use an economics class. Or 3.

so, the demand for oil is lower than for years.

i see your lips moving, but all i see coming out are errors.
well, perhaps you should consider what your link is saying. It is saying that oil demand has been increased over prior projections. It does not compare demand year by year. And, of course, we do not yet have definitive numbers for 2013. So, look at what is said in the following:
Update 1-u.s. Oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -eia
UPDATE 1-U.S. oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -EIA | Reuters

now, me boy, you may want to compare dates of these eia statements. Yours was from 2012, in on sept 11, and says that the projection for oil in 2012 was being increased. It says absolutly nothing about the demand for oil over any period of time, in a comparative way. Now my link, from less thn one week ago, says the demand for oil in 2012 was lower than for the prior 16 years.
Which makes your comments invalid, and stupid. And validates what i said. I won't expect an apology. By the way, do you now see my lips moving without any error???

eia lifts 2012/2013 world oil demand growth forecasts | reuters

123

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

you must be kidding, eh, todd???? Drill baby drill???


right. Nice attempt at an insult, right out of the gate. So, me boy, what i was getting at, should you have asked, is that we import most of your oil. We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%. So, drilling at 3% is a solution that only a fool would find rational. Nothing wrong with drilling, but just do not expect to change the oil supply equation much. But do expect to pay lots, and love the military costs to keep the oil flowing from some very unsavory partners.

So, you love the trade deficit. See no problem with it.


Very funny. You know what the trade deficit is. And there is nothing right or wrong with it, but it is always better to have a surplus than a deficit in trade. Keeps the dollars here, instead of saudi arabia. Which makes generally for more jobs and more gnp.

Maybe you support alternative energy sources, and the attempt to see those sources developed???


Was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money. New technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines. You will never, ever see an alternative to oil if that is your viewpoint. Unless, of course, we see phillips petrolium suddenly developing a new technology. Then i have a hunch you would then change your criteria so fast you would give me whiplash.

Now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the koch brothers, and you happy, i guess. Really, really stupid, todd. But right out of the koch play book.

The oil companies have exceptional monopoly power.


wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue. Obvious mistake on my part.
So, the demand for oil is lower than for years. The supply is higher than for years. Yet the price of oil goes up, not down.
Your explanation???
I dealt with the alaskan oil companies for years. Got to know them at a fairly high level.
And yes, me boy, they do indeed control supply. And to some extent demand. And they have pretty much full control of price.
Look up monopoly. Maybe you are simply saying you like monopoly.
Which puts you in perfect alignment with the koch brothers again. But they are screwing all of us, even if you do like being screwed by them.

You are looking like a con tool, todd. Thought you were smarter than that.

was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money.

that is excellent! Private enterprise at work.
not my point. As you well know. So, you hate the computer industry. And the internet. And earthquake technology developed by caltrans and federal government being deployed for nuclear power plants. And you must love fracking. Guess where the technology was developed. All now in the hands of private enterprise. So, why is it just competition for the oil companies that you dislike? We paid for these, and thousands more with our tax dollars. Generally all now making the private industry trillions.

new technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines.

jimmy carter wasted billions in the 70s on synfuel. If it were up to you we'd still have a money losing, taxpayer subsidized boondogle. I guess you love the ethanol mandate?
maybe. Not at all sure of your numbers. A link to that one would be interesting. All of carter's energy programs ended with reagan. Neither you nor i will ever know of the long term results had they been allowed to go forward. Take a look at what china is doing. And germany. And other countries. While we stand pat with oil.

now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change

of course i believe in climate change. I live in chicago and 11,000 years ago my area was under a mile of ice. I love climate change.
i am sure you read my sentence in total, which makes your answer is disingenuous. Tacky.

then there are revenue and jobs.

again, you are taking part of a sentence from what i said. Below is what i said in full:

now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change, but pretty much all of the client scientists do. As does our military, and most countries of the world. So, that is a consideration for most of us, if not you.
Then there are revenue and jobs. If the products and services pan out, as our competitors believe they will, then they get the jobs and we get the shaft. Which keeps the oil companies, the koch brothers, and you happy, i guess. Really, really stupid, todd. But right out of the koch play book.

yes, revenue and jobs flow from money losing technology. Look at all the jobs and revenue we get from solyndra.
solyndra. The favorite alternative energy example. What you do not say, of course, is that the full group of companies in obamas alternative energy program numbered over 130. So far, less than 1% have failed. Which is a remarkably low number when compared to the start up numbers for all companies. So your point is vacuous. Some were bound to fail, and the program allowed for many more than that. As any venture capitalist would expect.

wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue.

oil companies have a monopoly? Lol!
Take an economics class. Better yet, take 3.
Then you can admit your idiotic error.

Toddster, me boy, you are putting words in my mouth. I said oil companies have considerable monopoly power. Which any econ professor would agree with. You see, toddster, with the exception of natural monopolies, monopolies are not allowed. So, it was no error. What you just said was and idiotic error. Perhaps you coule use an economics class. Or 3.

so, the demand for oil is lower than for years.

i see your lips moving, but all i see coming out are errors.
well, perhaps you should consider what your link is saying. It is saying that oil demand has been increased over prior projections. It does not compare demand year by year. And, of course, we do not yet have definitive numbers for 2013. So, look at what is said in the following:
Update 1-u.s. Oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -eia
UPDATE 1-U.S. oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -EIA | Reuters

now, me boy, you may want to compare dates of these eia statements. Yours was from 2012, in on sept 11, and says that the projection for oil in 2012 was being increased. It says absolutly nothing about the demand for oil over any period of time, in a comparative way. Now my link, from less thn one week ago, says the demand for oil in 2012 was lower than for the prior 16 years.
Which makes your comments invalid, and stupid. And validates what i said. I won't expect an apology. By the way, do you now see my lips moving without any error???

eia lifts 2012/2013 world oil demand growth forecasts | reuters

123

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

LOL!

By the way, oil is a world market.
Over 90 million barrels produced a day.
Which oil producer has "considerable monopoly power" in that market?

 

[Rshermr]

was part of a start up. Lost money for years. But, one day, we finally got it right. And then we made a lot of money.

that is excellent! Private enterprise at work.
not my point. As you well know. So, you hate the computer industry. And the internet. And earthquake technology developed by caltrans and federal government being deployed for nuclear power plants. And you must love fracking. Guess where the technology was developed. All now in the hands of private enterprise. So, why is it just competition for the oil companies that you dislike? We paid for these, and thousands more with our tax dollars. Generally all now making the private industry trillions.

new technology always costs more than old technology. If it were up to you, based on your concept, we would still be computing with adding machines.

jimmy carter wasted billions in the 70s on synfuel. If it were up to you we'd still have a money losing, taxpayer subsidized boondogle. I guess you love the ethanol mandate?
maybe. Not at all sure of your numbers. A link to that one would be interesting. All of carter's energy programs ended with reagan. Neither you nor i will ever know of the long term results had they been allowed to go forward. Take a look at what china is doing. And germany. And other countries. While we stand pat with oil.

now, i know, being a con, you do not believe in climate change

of course i believe in climate change. I live in chicago and 11,000 years ago my area was under a mile of ice. I love climate change.
i am sure you read my sentence in total, which makes your answer is disingenuous. Tacky.

then there are revenue and jobs.

again, you are taking part of a sentence from what i said. Below is what i said in full:


yes, revenue and jobs flow from money losing technology. Look at all the jobs and revenue we get from solyndra.
solyndra. The favorite alternative energy example. What you do not say, of course, is that the full group of companies in obamas alternative energy program numbered over 130. So far, less than 1% have failed. Which is a remarkably low number when compared to the start up numbers for all companies. So your point is vacuous. Some were bound to fail, and the program allowed for many more than that. As any venture capitalist would expect.

wow. I gave you some credit for having a clue.

oil companies have a monopoly? Lol!
Take an economics class. Better yet, take 3.
Then you can admit your idiotic error.

Toddster, me boy, you are putting words in my mouth. I said oil companies have considerable monopoly power. Which any econ professor would agree with. You see, toddster, with the exception of natural monopolies, monopolies are not allowed. So, it was no error. What you just said was and idiotic error. Perhaps you coule use an economics class. Or 3.

so, the demand for oil is lower than for years.

i see your lips moving, but all i see coming out are errors.
well, perhaps you should consider what your link is saying. It is saying that oil demand has been increased over prior projections. It does not compare demand year by year. And, of course, we do not yet have definitive numbers for 2013. So, look at what is said in the following:
Update 1-u.s. Oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -eia
UPDATE 1-U.S. oil demand in 2012 was lowest in 16 years -EIA | Reuters

now, me boy, you may want to compare dates of these eia statements. Yours was from 2012, in on sept 11, and says that the projection for oil in 2012 was being increased. It says absolutly nothing about the demand for oil over any period of time, in a comparative way. Now my link, from less thn one week ago, says the demand for oil in 2012 was lower than for the prior 16 years.
Which makes your comments invalid, and stupid. And validates what i said. I won't expect an apology. By the way, do you now see my lips moving without any error???

eia lifts 2012/2013 world oil demand growth forecasts | reuters

123

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

LOL!

By the way, oil is a world market.
Over 90 million barrels produced a day.
Which oil producer has "considerable monopoly power" in that market?

Nice. But you provided a document that shows oil consumption through 2010. I said oil demand was the lowest in years. Like NOW. So get a grip. You did not show oil consumption for 2011 or 2012. I saw your link prior to posting. And I did not use it because the info is not current.
And, being a pure capitalist, you should know that while oil is a world market, the fact is that the demand for oil in the US does not have anything to do with the demand for oil in Spain. Or any other market. What matters is the demand in the US. Unless, of course, you believe that oil companies are selling oil at something close to cost. Unless you are saying that supply and demand do not apply. which would be difficult as hell for you. Cons do not allow that to be said. But, economists believe that the price for oil products is set by the oil companies. Independent economists, that is.

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil. Royal Dutch Shell. Jesus, man, next time you take a drive, look at the gas stations. And, the off brands normally are selling product from one of the above. If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something. But I suspect you would prefer to believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe it is a competitive market, you can do so. Believing what you want to believe is a con trait.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

123

World Crude Oil Consumption by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

LOL!

By the way, oil is a world market.
Over 90 million barrels produced a day.
Which oil producer has "considerable monopoly power" in that market?

Nice. But you provided a document that shows oil consumption through 2010. I said oil demand was the lowest in years. Like NOW. So get a grip. You did not show oil consumption for 2011 or 2012. I saw your link prior to posting. And I did not use it because the info is not current.
And, being a pure capitalist, you should know that while oil is a world market, the fact is that the demand for oil in the US does not have anything to do with the demand for oil in Spain. Or any other market. What matters is the demand in the US. Unless, of course, you believe that oil companies are selling oil at something close to cost. Unless you are saying that supply and demand do not apply. which would be difficult as hell for you. Cons do not allow that to be said. But, economists believe that the price for oil products is set by the oil companies. Independent economists, that is.

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil. Royal Dutch Shell. Jesus, man, next time you take a drive, look at the gas stations. And, the off brands normally are selling product from one of the above. If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something. But I suspect you would prefer to believe what you want to believe. If you want to believe it is a competitive market, you can do so. Believing what you want to believe is a con trait.

Nice. But you provided a document that shows oil consumption through 2010. I said oil demand was the lowest in years.

Great. Show me world demand is lowest in years.

Unless you are saying that supply and demand do not apply.

That's your claim, increased US production wouldn't help. LOL!

You did not show oil consumption for 2011 or 2012.

Great, all you need to prove your claim is proof consumption dropped since 2010. Fetch!

But, economists believe that the price for oil products is set by the oil companies. Independent economists, that is.

Who? Where? Show me.

If you want to believe it is a competitive market, you can do so.

Show me it isn't.

Believing what you want to believe is a con trait.

Making shit up is a lib trait.