ideas for vetting, revised

[Rshermr]

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.

Why. Do you know someone who buyes his gas and oil from France??





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

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

Not actually. that was your statement. Here is the deal. We drill oil, and it is sold on the world market. We buy gas and oil, as consumers from the US market. See the problem. We produce little in this country, and if we double our production here, it will make no real impact on the price we pay. Assuming that supply and demand had anything to do with the price we pay.

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!
I did. In the US. I have no reason to prove anything more. Unless, of course, you do indeed buy gas and oil from some other country.

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

Who? Where? Show me.

What, you think I am your lacky. Find some who say that I am incorrect, if you do not believe me.

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

Show me it isn't.
Not possible. Your mind is closed. If you are stupid enough to believe that the oil business is competitive, you will believe it. And you pay too poorly to make the effort.


Believing what you want to believe is a con trait.

Making shit up is a lib trait.

See above.
funny thing is, my best friend died a few years ago. Knew him for many years. And he was probably as much of a con tool as you. So, I learned to understand the con mind pretty well. And yes, cons do indeed believe what they want to believe.

Oil companies are not monopolistic. Funny. Really stupid. But funny.

 

[editec]

Subsidize domestically produced/bought/used products and services that reduce the need for imports and thus closses the trade deficit, which is a hole through which the economy bleeds money.

TARIFF

Free public transportation to reduce oil demand,

I'd have to see the numbers.

and solar panel subsidies for manufacturers so we can compete with china in our own country. Maybe subsidize the manufacturing of important things like medical equipment and machinery, since it only makes sense that we can provide it for ourselves.

Again, tariffs are probably the best market way to achieve the above. That way the government isn't choosing the winners, the market is.

I would also like to see the utilization of “test out” potential for K-12 by letting kids take home textbooks over the summer to test out of science, math, history, etc. classes before the start of the new year so they can graduate sooner, which should probably be incentivized by college tuition/expenses vouchers worth half of what was saved from testing out of classes rather than having those classes be taught by a teacher.

Sort of a CLEP test for high school? I think they already have that if you count General Equivalency testing

Standard fitness tests could be given for a person to test out of PE, Maybe given 4 times per year.

I hated PE, too. Still I think PE is a good idea.

I would also like to see an extra last day of school for k-12 grades where you just have to memorize some info on preventing heart-attacks/strokes/cardiac-arrests, type II diabetes, osteoporosis, and cancer, all of which are nearly 100% preventable and cost the U.S. over 600 billion dollars a year.

Think it would be a better idea to mandate that the kid's parents took this course since they buy and cook the food.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Why. Do you know someone who buyes his gas and oil from France??





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

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

Not actually. that was your statement. Here is the deal. We drill oil, and it is sold on the world market. We buy gas and oil, as consumers from the US market. See the problem. We produce little in this country, and if we double our production here, it will make no real impact on the price we pay. Assuming that supply and demand had anything to do with the price we pay.

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!
I did. In the US. I have no reason to prove anything more. Unless, of course, you do indeed buy gas and oil from some other country.

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

Who? Where? Show me.

What, you think I am your lacky. Find some who say that I am incorrect, if you do not believe me.

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

Show me it isn't.
Not possible. Your mind is closed. If you are stupid enough to believe that the oil business is competitive, you will believe it. And you pay too poorly to make the effort.


Believing what you want to believe is a con trait.

Making shit up is a lib trait.

See above.
funny thing is, my best friend died a few years ago. Knew him for many years. And he was probably as much of a con tool as you. So, I learned to understand the con mind pretty well. And yes, cons do indeed believe what they want to believe.

Oil companies are not monopolistic. Funny. Really stupid. But funny.

You did not show oil consumption for 2011 or 2012.


I know you're a liberal, and therefore incapable of adding 2 numbers together, so I'll speak more slowly.

In post #58, I posted a link that shows world oil comsumption from 1980 to 2010.
The 2010 number was 86.95 million barrels per day.
In post #56, I posted a link that forecast 2012 consumption would rise by 840,000 barrels per day to a level of 89.1 million barrels per day. Subtraction shows that 2011 consumption must have been 88.26 million barrels per day.
If 2013 consumption is projected to rise to 90.1 million barrels a day, I'd like you to show me when the reduction in consumption occurred.

I have no reason to prove anything more. Unless, of course, you do indeed buy gas and oil from some other country.

I buy oil and gas from some other country everyday. In case you haven't heard, we import most of our oil. You think we aren't impacted by the world price?

What, you think I am your lacky. Find some who say that I am incorrect

You made a claim that certain people said certain things. You can't prove it.
Now you want me to prove a negative? You're dumber than I thought.

 

[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.

We use abot 23% of the worlds oil, but produce more like 3%.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

We produced closer to 7% of world oil production in 2012.
Forecast to rise to 8% this year.

From your link: Oil demand for the year was at 18.56 million bpd, down 2.08 percent
compared with 2011

We use closer to 21% of the worlds oil.

 

[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.

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something.

It tells me they use the same inputs and gasoline is a competitive market.

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

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP drop the prices, ALL drop their prices. Or else gas would be $20 a gallon.

 

[Rshermr]

Todds response in Bold:

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something.

It tells me they use the same inputs and gasoline is a competitive market.

Yup, that would be it. In competitive markets, when supply goes up and demand goes down, then you would expect that ALL would raise their prices by exactly the same amount. That must be in some economics text I missed. But, all cons read that text. And the added price resulting from oil speculators, by primarily speculators who never take a drop of oil into their possession, are simply part of the free market system, which we should all be thankful for when we pay $4 per gallon.



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

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP drop the prices, ALL drop their prices. Or else gas would be $20 a gallon.
See above.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

its among the most heavily regulated markets so the most you can say is that its somewhat competitive. New competition from natural gas, syn/biofuels, electric, diesel, cafe standards, public transportation, and flex work is helping a lot to keep a lid on prices.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todds response in Bold:

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something.

It tells me they use the same inputs and gasoline is a competitive market.

Yup, that would be it. In competitive markets, when supply goes up and demand goes down, then you would expect that ALL would raise their prices by exactly the same amount. That must be in some economics text I missed. But, all cons read that text. And the added price resulting from oil speculators, by primarily speculators who never take a drop of oil into their possession, are simply part of the free market system, which we should all be thankful for when we pay $4 per gallon.



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

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP drop the prices, ALL drop their prices. Or else gas would be $20 a gallon.
See above.

See above?
Is gas $20 above?

 

[Rshermr]

Todds response in Bold:

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something.

It tells me they use the same inputs and gasoline is a competitive market.

Yup, that would be it. In competitive markets, when supply goes up and demand goes down, then you would expect that ALL would raise their prices by exactly the same amount. That must be in some economics text I missed. But, all cons read that text. And the added price resulting from oil speculators, by primarily speculators who never take a drop of oil into their possession, are simply part of the free market system, which we should all be thankful for when we pay $4 per gallon.



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

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP drop the prices, ALL drop their prices. Or else gas would be $20 a gallon.
See above.

See above?
Is gas $20 above?

No, but if it were, it would be to the detriment to the oil companies in a relatively short period. Perhaps you are unaware of that other basic, and I mean really basic, economic rule: Quantity X Price = Revenue. How fast do you think electric cars would sell at $20 per gallon. Do you suppose that alternative fuel projects would be funded at a exceedingly high rate. Get a grip, me boy. I never said the oil companies were stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todds response in Bold:

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP raise the prices, ALL raise their prices. That should tell you something.

It tells me they use the same inputs and gasoline is a competitive market.

Yup, that would be it. In competitive markets, when supply goes up and demand goes down, then you would expect that ALL would raise their prices by exactly the same amount. That must be in some economics text I missed. But, all cons read that text. And the added price resulting from oil speculators, by primarily speculators who never take a drop of oil into their possession, are simply part of the free market system, which we should all be thankful for when we pay $4 per gallon.



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

If Exxon, or Shell, or BP drop the prices, ALL drop their prices. Or else gas would be $20 a gallon.
See above.

And the added price resulting from oil speculators, by primarily speculators who never take a drop of oil into their possession,

If speculators never take possession, how do they add to the price?
They neither reduce supply nor raise demand.
Your ignorance of economics is wide and deep.

 

[Rshermr]

So, you are totally unaware of futures speculation?? I do not think so. The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery. They own it. They simply leave it in the inventory of the world oil supply, which makes what they purchased unavailable for sale. Which makes the supply less. And, since the speculators are bidding against everyone else buying oil, it causes the price of oil to increase. You know, me boy, sort of like the stock exchange. The more buying, the higher the price of the stock.

So, me boy, I really do not think you are that ignorant. You appear to be relatively smart, but your ignorance is sometimes unbelievable. But, you are, due to your professed ignorance, completely wrong. The speculators, by purchasing the oil they do not take possession of, both increase demand (that usually happens when added people buy added product) and decrease supply (that usually happens when you buy product making it no longer available for other buyers).

Your ignorance of economics is wide and deep.
Well, hell, at least you can spell economics. Which puts you ahead of some of your con friends.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you are totally unaware of futures speculation?? I do not think so. The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery. They own it. They simply leave it in the inventory of the world oil supply, which makes what they purchased unavailable for sale. Which makes the supply less. And, since the speculators are bidding against everyone else buying oil, it causes the price of oil to increase. You know, me boy, sort of like the stock exchange. The more buying, the higher the price of the stock.

So, me boy, I really do not think you are that ignorant. You appear to be relatively smart, but your ignorance is sometimes unbelievable. But, you are, due to your professed ignorance, completely wrong. The speculators, by purchasing the oil they do not take possession of, both increase demand (that usually happens when added people buy added product) and decrease supply (that usually happens when you buy product making it no longer available for other buyers).

Your ignorance of economics is wide and deep.
Well, hell, at least you can spell economics. Which puts you ahead of some of your con friends.

The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery.

Great, they raise the price when they buy and when they don't take delivery, they sell and the price goes back down.

Anything else you're confused about?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

sort of like the stock exchange. The more buying, the higher the price of the stock.

too stupid of course since every buyer is also a seller (and in a short time in the futures market too) so it can have no obvious effect on price which explains why stocks don't only go up!!

If speculators are driving price up then sell your house and buy and make a fortune!!

See why we are 1000% certain a liberal will be slow??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes its widely accepted that our Hawley Smoot tariffs were a major cause of the Great Depression and in fact the reason that the vast majority of economists support free trade and why we have free trade even when an uber extreme socialist control freak like Obama is in office .

To the vast majority of socialists, Obama is just another center right corporatist.

too stupid!! he had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders an open communist!!

See why we say slow????

No wonder you are not treated as even a slow-witted adult.

You are simply an ignorant child in a basement somewhere typing in the dark.

 

[Rshermr]

So, you are totally unaware of futures speculation?? I do not think so. The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery. They own it. They simply leave it in the inventory of the world oil supply, which makes what they purchased unavailable for sale. Which makes the supply less. And, since the speculators are bidding against everyone else buying oil, it causes the price of oil to increase. You know, me boy, sort of like the stock exchange. The more buying, the higher the price of the stock.

So, me boy, I really do not think you are that ignorant. You appear to be relatively smart, but your ignorance is sometimes unbelievable. But, you are, due to your professed ignorance, completely wrong. The speculators, by purchasing the oil they do not take possession of, both increase demand (that usually happens when added people buy added product) and decrease supply (that usually happens when you buy product making it no longer available for other buyers).

Your ignorance of economics is wide and deep.
Well, hell, at least you can spell economics. Which puts you ahead of some of your con friends.

The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery.

Great, they raise the price when they buy and when they don't take delivery, they sell and the price goes back down.

Anything else you're confused about?

Me? Confused? It was you that said that speculators who did not take delivery did not effect supply or demand. Now you agree with me and suggest I was confused. Funny, but I was not confused. You were. And, yes, when they sell the oil that they did not take possession of, that does indeed drive the price back down. Obviously. Funny how ignorant people always seem to think that when they say something obvious that they are being profound.
But, a bright person would recognize that such speculation is not based on the true need for oil. If they were out of the picture, then all that they had ownership of but not possession of would not be taken out of inventory. It will never be the case that the supply of oil available is as great as or greater than if the speculators were not involved. Speculators always own some considerable amount of oil that reduces the oil supply.
You should google oil speculation. Amazing what you could learn. Not that I am saying that I am an expert. I just understand the basics.

 

[Rshermr]

To the vast majority of socialists, Obama is just another center right corporatist.

too stupid!! he had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders an open communist!!

See why we say slow????

No wonder you are not treated as even a slow-witted adult.

You are simply an ignorant child in a basement somewhere typing in the dark.

Nice description of the ignorant clown. He just posts stupid stuff. Usually con dogma. Which is what he gets paid to post. Funny thing is, he is not even correct about what socialism is, or what communism is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He just posts stupid stuff. Usually con dogma.

if the dogma as you call it is incorrect why not present your most substantive example or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Which is what he gets paid to post. Funny thing is, he is not even correct about what socialism is, or what communism is.

too stupid as usual since the words have several meanings that are in the dictionaries for all to see.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, you are totally unaware of futures speculation?? I do not think so. The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery. They own it. They simply leave it in the inventory of the world oil supply, which makes what they purchased unavailable for sale. Which makes the supply less. And, since the speculators are bidding against everyone else buying oil, it causes the price of oil to increase. You know, me boy, sort of like the stock exchange. The more buying, the higher the price of the stock.

So, me boy, I really do not think you are that ignorant. You appear to be relatively smart, but your ignorance is sometimes unbelievable. But, you are, due to your professed ignorance, completely wrong. The speculators, by purchasing the oil they do not take possession of, both increase demand (that usually happens when added people buy added product) and decrease supply (that usually happens when you buy product making it no longer available for other buyers).

Your ignorance of economics is wide and deep.
Well, hell, at least you can spell economics. Which puts you ahead of some of your con friends.

The raise the price by bidding on oil speculating that the price will go up. So they own the oil, and could take delivery. But since it will not fit in their garage, they never take delivery.

Great, they raise the price when they buy and when they don't take delivery, they sell and the price goes back down.

Anything else you're confused about?

Me? Confused? It was you that said that speculators who did not take delivery did not effect supply or demand. Now you agree with me and suggest I was confused. Funny, but I was not confused. You were. And, yes, when they sell the oil that they did not take possession of, that does indeed drive the price back down. Obviously. Funny how ignorant people always seem to think that when they say something obvious that they are being profound.
But, a bright person would recognize that such speculation is not based on the true need for oil. If they were out of the picture, then all that they had ownership of but not possession of would not be taken out of inventory. It will never be the case that the supply of oil available is as great as or greater than if the speculators were not involved. Speculators always own some considerable amount of oil that reduces the oil supply.
You should google oil speculation. Amazing what you could learn. Not that I am saying that I am an expert. I just understand the basics.

Me? Confused?

Yes, deeply.

It was you that said that speculators who did not take delivery did not effect supply or demand.

That's correct. If you don't touch the supply, you don't increase demand or reduce supply.

Now you agree with me and suggest I was confused.

No, you said they increased demand. You're wrong.

They own it. They simply leave it in the inventory of the world oil supply, which makes what they purchased unavailable for sale.

LOL! They never take delivery, they don't make anything "unavailable for sale".

And, yes, when they sell the oil that they did not take possession of, that does indeed drive the price back down.

So why are you whining that they raised the price?

But, a bright person would recognize that such speculation is not based on the true need for oil.

So what? Southwest buys oil futures, they don't need a drop.

If they were out of the picture, then all that they had ownership of but not possession of would not be taken out of inventory.

When you don't take possession, you don't take anything out of inventory. You're a slow one.

Speculators always own some considerable amount of oil that reduces the oil supply.

If that's the case, speculators are always short some considerable amount of oil that increases the oil supply.

Not that I am saying that I am an expert.

You are an expert, at displaying your ignorance.

 

[Supposn]

Dafenstein, I’m a proponent of free enterprise and I’m generally opposed to government choosing winners or losers.

I’m an advocate of an explicit market driven trade policy that would significantly reduce USA’s trade deficit, increase the sum of USA’s aggregate imports plus exports, subsidizes USA’s exports and its entire net cost is borne by USA purchasers of imported goods.

Refer to:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...significantly-reduce-usa-s-trade-deficit.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[JakeStarkey]

He just posts stupid stuff. Usually con dogma.

if the dogma as you call it is incorrect why not present your most substantive example or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so.

Which is what he gets paid to post. Funny thing is, he is not even correct about what socialism is, or what communism is.

too stupid as usual since the words have several meanings that are in the dictionaries for all to see.

Too funny. You aren't even intelligent enough to be a reactionary. You don't understand the words that you use here so wrongly.

eddy is here for grins and chuckles, nothing more.