I'm pretty worried right now...

[Gold_Bond]

Something tells me that in the next year or 2 DCI will come up with the grand idea of "regional circuits" to allow corps to stay close to home for part of the season and still compete while saving money.

Too bad they decided to dismantle what already existed to get to this point.

[mistertoo]

.

Edited July 14, 2006 by mistertoo

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Dave, you and I usually agree on most topics. We seem to see eye-to-eye on drum corps related issues but when it comes to politics, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. It doesn't seem to be fine with the other poster who now needs to call me an "unhinged liberal" in order to convince me that my opinion is not to be listened to.

I still fail to see your line of reasoning. For example:

1. What does 9/11 and its aftermath have to do with the free market economy? 9/11 was about terrorism, a very real and present scourge that threatens the very security of our nation and that of other peace-loving peoples.

A crashing economy can destroy a country as well. When the price of virtually everything goes up, as is beginning to happen, depression usually follows as there is little disposable income to spend. We are a country who's economy is largely based on consumer goods and services. When people are not spending money on that, we take a hit, economically.

2. Try as I might, I don't understand how OPEC (or anyone, for that matter) can "artificially create greater demand." I'm no student of economics but, as I understand it, consumers create demand, not those producing the product.

By curtailing the amount of oil being produced. If they produced more, which they are capable of doing, the prices would be reduced.

3. Why are individuals and drum corps on tight budgets the only ones that have to pay the ransom? The price of gas is not dependent upon one's financial status. Bill Gates pays the same for a gallon of gas as you and I.

We are not the only ones, but Bill Gates has more disposable income than just about anyone on the planet. He is not on a budget. I live in a poverty stricken area where people now have to give up a meal to drive to work while Bush/Cheney make millions off of the situation.

4. And finally, I don't feel as if I'm being held hostage and being made to pay ransom. I have a choice. I don't have to drive; I can rely on alternative forms of transportation; I can stay home instead of driving to the movies; in short, I don't have to purchase petroleum products. Yes, it might mean a drastic change in my lifestyle but, if I find that the price of gas moves beyond what I am willing to pay, I don't have to make the purchase. Nobody is forcing me to do so.

Rather than play the blame game, why don't we examine what we're (meaning you and me and other ordinary citizens) actually doing to ease our dependence on foreign oil? Are we driving less? Are we taking public transportation? Are we curtailing vacations and other non-essential trips in the car? Do we carpool? More pointedly, are you willing to forego travelling to drum corps events this summer? Would you suggest that the entire season be cancelled and corps buses be made to sit idle as a means of sending a message to OPEC? In short, are we really willing to give up some of the conveniences and luxuries that we enjoy, or is it easier to blame the president and curse the government?

In the area I live in, there is no alternative transportation. Public transportation in areas like this do not exist. People must drive to work and to purchase food. Yes, there are some things that people can and should do. Yes, maybe we should forgo driving vacations to send a message. I think that will start to happen. But I do believe the president has a role to play in providing the nation he represents with the best possible economy. I think he should be telling OPEC to increase production. He should be telling us to do all the things you have outlined as well. He should be setting up incentives for public transportation as much as possible. Is he doing these things? No. Why? He wants us to drive our cars. He makes money while the guy down the street from me, living in a busted up trailor with his wife and two children has to not eat lunch at work so he can afford to drive to work in his beat up old car. So, I'm not just blaming the president, but I am calling him out. I think he could do a lot more to relieve this situation than he is. Set an example, that's what leaders do.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

This is flawed reasoning. Again, I'm not economics whiz but even I can figure out the problem with the above statement.

Let's say that OPEC produces 10 barrels of oil per day and that 10 customers purchase those barrels for $1 each. To rasie the price, OPEC might curtail production to only 8 barrels so that the 10 customers must now compete for a limited supply. Those willing to pay higher prices get the oil. However, now that only 8 barrels are coming through the pipeline doesn't mean that 20 customers will suddenly want the oil. New customers have not come forward or been created. Demand has not increased.

However, there is one part you have left out in the equation. New customers have stepped forward in developing countries, most notably, China. OK, they may have always purchased oil, but now they want a lot more as they become more and more industrialized.

[dannyboy]

Very serious.

http://www.capitalregiment.org/about/fuelcampaign/

[ChicagoFan]

However, there is one part you have left out in the equation. New customers have stepped forward in developing countries, most notably, China. OK, they may have always purchased oil, but now they want a lot more as they become more and more industrialized.

You're correct. There is greater demand for oil from countries such as China and Korea, but that demand has not been "artificially created" by OPEC and the oil companies as you suggested earlier.

[ChicagoFan]

The link to Capital Regiment's page and their appeal for funds to offset the high price of fuel caused me to wonder:: would it be prudent for DCI to excuse corps from some of their obligations if those corps find that they are unable to attend due to budgetary constraints brought about by the present spike in oil prices? How would we as fans react?

Edited May 24, 2006 by ChicagoFan

[81regiment]

What figures do you have? From what sources? You have mentioned none.

My issue is not a lack of a source. My issue is believing everything the media says verbatim, without an rational analysis to support a claim.

Which is the VERY FIRST THING I POSTED on the subject.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=XOM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=CVX

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=RDS-A

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=MSFT

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=BMY

Let me know if you need anything else.

Edited May 24, 2006 by 81regiment

[81regiment]

You're correct. There is greater demand for oil from countries such as China and Korea, but that demand has not been "artificially created" by OPEC and the oil companies as you suggested earlier.

Correct - supply and demand do NOT impact each other directly.

When we go to buy a gallon of gasoline, we have NO clue about the supply side of the equation...the only thing we know...is PRICE. That price will determine how much we will buy, AT THAT PRICE, and we are TOTALLY oblivous to how much is being supplied. TOTALLY.

If prices are falling, we are likely to buy more. If they are rising, we are likely to buy less.

When Exxon decides to make a gallon gasoline, they only know the market PRICE for a gallon of gas. That price will determine how much gasoline they make, AT THAT price. They do not know if that gallon will be incrementally profitable versus the last gallon they refined. If it is, they will supply more. If it is not, they will supply less.

One of the beauties of an economy coordinated by price movements is that nobody has to understand it in order for it to work. Surely, this is better than prices being set by law or by committee.

Thank you for reading my diatribe.

I hope that this helps in understanding the topic at hand, as opposed to inflaming a point of view that is seemingly hypersensitive to any sort of analysis that flies in the face of said perspective.

Chicago was great today. I was born there - always nice to go back.

Edited May 24, 2006 by 81regiment

[81regiment]

Now you are resorting to name calling, and you call me unhinged? I am expressing my opinion, which is different from yours. Apparently, you don't think I am entitled to express my opinion. Sorry that I won't fall into the rank and file. America is not a drum corps and Bush is not the drum major.

There's no demad for oil?

You want the other side of my trades? You mean the big money for the 10% tax rate? How about we all get that? Then we would have more money to pay for gas. So would Blue Devils, Scouts, East Coast Jazz and the Citations.

David, I never said you could not express your opinion. I was presenting an analysis of the issue - you can take it or leave it, but I'd like the same level of respect, without the name calling, implied ("here's a lesson for you") or otherwise. I was simply trying to explain to the community at large way things happen the way they do, and for that I was called an oil lover, insular, ignorant of China's environmental issues, sitting on the seat of empire....and in need of an economics lesson...among other things...

Sometimes I can get lengthy - diatribe has a negative connotation - do you call that walking your talk?

There is a reason that economics is called the dismal science...it is difficult to grasp, it is mundane, it is a cure for insomnia. When I suggest reading Thomas Sowell, I am serious. He is excellent - his book should be required reading for every high school student. When Ryan started this thread, he struck a chord with me - everyone has an opinion about the economy, even though they do not understand it. A little financial literacy would go a long way in this world.

When I said...

"I'm not in much need for economics instruction from unhinged liberals on DCP. In other words, there's no demand, but a lot of supply. What is that worth?"

...I was speaking of your insistence to "teach me a lesson", not referring to oil. What is the value of your "lesson" if you are willing to keep supplying it, but there is no demand for it. I know what the value is to me.

Unhinged is a reference to the fact that my analysis flies in the face of your world view, and you choose to ignore a discussion of the analysis and continue to spout the liberal talking points. It is human nature to defend your opinion, and you are entititled to it. It is crazy to keep blaming Bush for high oil prices, but so long as the media keeps spouting this invective, people who won't engage in analysis are the same as a door that is off the hinges.

Some stock market traders are always buying or selling at the wrong time. Having that information can be EXTREMELY valuable. So when certain guys are in the market, I almost always want to do the opposite of what they are doing. Taking the other side of their trades is a way of saying that it's easy to take their money. It has nothing to do with drum corps, but it has everything to do with being an informed participant in a global marketplace.