I'm pretty worried right now...

[mbird139]

The current administration (with nearly $100 million of personal money invested in oil) has not even asked OPEC to increase production, never mind actually applying some pressure to do so.

Could you please provide a source for this information?

Let me give you a small hint --- if we were less dependent on OPEC for our oil, the price of oil and gas prices for that matter would come down. If you want to BLAME someone, why don't you go complain to environmentalists that have stopped drilling in ANWAR, have stopped drilling off of our shores, have stopped refineries from being built, have demanded 50+ blends of gasoline, and so forth.

[81regiment]

Let's see, the Clinton administration pressured the Middle East to increase production in order to ease demand.

More available oil = lower prices.

If you must have a McDonald's hamburger to survive and you go to McDonald's where there are 100 other people who also need hamburgers to survive and there are about 90-100 hamburgers already produced to be sold, McDonald's can charge maybe $5.00 a burger. However, if McDonald's increases production of hamburgers so that there are 500 burgers available to those 100 people, the market will not bear a price of $5.00 a burger and McDonald's can only charge $2.00 a burger.

Yes, I got it all along, David.

So which is it? Lower demand, or lower prices? You make the call, but they are NOT the same thing - which has been my point all along!! People use certain terminology interchangeably, which is just plain wrong. You said two different things in two different posts.

Prices provide the incentive for producers and consumers to produce or demand more or less of something. When prices change, production and consumption behavior changes. Changes in prices are a market response to or a symptom of changes in a supply - demand condition.

I would never make the assertion that one needed a McDonalds hamburger TO SURVIVE. NONE of the discussion is framed in such extreme parameters, so it's pointless to have a meaningful discussion under such absurd assumptions.

If you want to go there, I need more information.

Does each person have the same appetite? Come on, we're talking about junk food!!!

Does every person have the same amount of purchasing power? If not, some will starve...right? Higher bids get the goods?

Are burgers really the only food available? Really? In a real economy, there are substitute products. KFC, anyone?

Who gets paid for making the raw materials for burgers available to McDonalds's? Is the supplier of beef jacking his prices? Or is it the pickle guy? Or the guy who drives the delivery truck?

Doesn't McDonald's costs go up because now the populace is worried about surviving instead of flipping burgers and they have to raise their hourly wage?

Since there are now record prices for burgers, McD's has record profits?

How can they make 500 burgers if this is all true?

Since it is a matter of survival, is there a goverment involved to make sure everyone starves by controlling prices and rationing?

More Kool Aid...

[81regiment]

Ah, see? You do get it. If more oil is produced relative to demand, prices will fall. That is what happened in the '90s. The current administration (with nearly $100 million of personal money invested in oil) has not even asked OPEC to increase production, never mind actually applying some pressure to do so.

Let's put $100 million in perspective.

375,000,000 gallons per day (that's 375 million gallons consumed daily, in the US only)

times $3.00 per gallon

times 365 days

equals $410 billion+ in retail gas purchases annually.

If they have a $100 million equity ownership in oil and gas, that investment may be - MAY BE - yielding 5%. For simplicity's sake, give them $5 million a year in dividends on a $100 million investment.

5,000,000 as a percentage of 410,000,000,000 is 0.012%

Is that what you are so bent out of shape for? 0.012% of the action? Even if it is up front, legal, and fully disclosed?

What makes you think that 0.012% of ANYTHING wields influence over the other 99.988% of ANY KIND? YIKES.

If they are doing something illegal, let's bring the charges and put them in jail.

After all, 40% tax rate on $5,000,000 is $2,000,000 a year to the IRS.

GW paid $187,768 in taxes in 2005.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...060414%2D1.html

Cheney paid $529,636 in taxes in 2005.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...060414%2D2.html

Looks like the IRS is over $1.3 million short. Put 'em in jail, even though he gave away his stock option proceeds. Bring the proof that there is something wrong, and put them in jail. Put these bastiges in jail.

When we do that, we could have an honest, politically untainted discussion about economics. On another thread. Maybe. Someday.

FYI Oil stocks in general are up 4X since 1999. Those bastiges - they made 4 times their money in 7 years...jail 'em. Oughta be against the law.

Edited May 21, 2006 by 81regiment

[sburstall]

I repeat the earlier formula, record high prices = record high profits. Every major oil company has reported record high profits, again. It don't have to be a liberal or a conservative to understand that simple formula. What can the government do about it? Let's see, the Clinton administration pressured the Middle East to increase production in order to ease demand. The Bush-Cheney administration is not doing this. But then again, those two men have over $85 million in oil, so they are in no hurry to see those profit margins drop. The good ole boys are taking care of themsleves and to H--L with everyone else.

Ummm...Domino Pizza had record high profits with a 7.5% profit margin, how come they aren't being investigated with the same ferocity as the oil industry?

Reason, oil AFFECTS people more than a medium pizza. As Einstein stated, "it's all relative". :P

More available oil = lower prices.

Not necessarily. When the oil distillaries are at 95+% production (maximum production), you can pump more oil into them but it's not really going to increase the amount of available oil to the public, thus prices will no decrease in price.

Edited May 22, 2006 by sburstall

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Could you please provide a source for this information?

Let me give you a small hint --- if we were less dependent on OPEC for our oil, the price of oil and gas prices for that matter would come down. If you want to BLAME someone, why don't you go complain to environmentalists that have stopped drilling in ANWAR, have stopped drilling off of our shores, have stopped refineries from being built, have demanded 50+ blends of gasoline, and so forth.

Before the last election, the network news reported that Bush had $35 million in oil and Cheney had $50 million in oil. That's a total of $85 million. Since big oil has had record profits since then, the share holders (Bush and Cheney) have benefited. The CEO of BP/Amaco was on the news a couple of weeks ago discussing his responsibility to the shareholders. He said that is why he gets paid the many millions of dollars he gets each year.

Like I said, once big oil isn't making record profits, I will step up my look for other solutions.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Yes, I got it all along, David.

So which is it? Lower demand, or lower prices? You make the call, but they are NOT the same thing - which has been my point all along!! People use certain terminology interchangeably, which is just plain wrong. You said two different things in two different posts.

Prices provide the incentive for producers and consumers to produce or demand more or less of something. When prices change, production and consumption behavior changes. Changes in prices are a market response to or a symptom of changes in a supply - demand condition.

I would never make the assertion that one needed a McDonalds hamburger TO SURVIVE. NONE of the discussion is framed in such extreme parameters, so it's pointless to have a meaningful discussion under such absurd assumptions.

If you want to go there, I need more information.

Does each person have the same appetite? Come on, we're talking about junk food!!!

Does every person have the same amount of purchasing power? If not, some will starve...right? Higher bids get the goods?

Are burgers really the only food available? Really? In a real economy, there are substitute products. KFC, anyone?

Who gets paid for making the raw materials for burgers available to McDonalds's? Is the supplier of beef jacking his prices? Or is it the pickle guy? Or the guy who drives the delivery truck?

Doesn't McDonald's costs go up because now the populace is worried about surviving instead of flipping burgers and they have to raise their hourly wage?

Since there are now record prices for burgers, McD's has record profits?

How can they make 500 burgers if this is all true?

Since it is a matter of survival, is there a goverment involved to make sure everyone starves by controlling prices and rationing?

More Kool Aid...

First of all, I was using McDonald's as an analogy, since you had mentioned it. I'm sorry you didn't understand that, it would have saved you that whole diatribe that you spent most of your post on.

Back to the original point. OPEC creates a false sense of increased demand by cutting back production. Then, that higher demand causes higher prices. If OPEC increases production, creating less demand in relation to available oil, prices go down. This has been shown to happen in the recent past.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Let's put $100 million in perspective.

375,000,000 gallons per day (that's 375 million gallons consumed daily, in the US only)

times $3.00 per gallon

times 365 days

equals $410 billion+ in retail gas purchases annually.

If they have a $100 million equity ownership in oil and gas, that investment may be - MAY BE - yielding 5%. For simplicity's sake, give them $5 million a year in dividends on a $100 million investment.

5,000,000 as a percentage of 410,000,000,000 is 0.012%

Is that what you are so bent out of shape for? 0.012% of the action? Even if it is up front, legal, and fully disclosed?

What makes you think that 0.012% of ANYTHING wields influence over the other 99.988% of ANY KIND? YIKES.

If they are doing something illegal, let's bring the charges and put them in jail.

After all, 40% tax rate on $5,000,000 is $2,000,000 a year to the IRS.

GW paid $187,768 in taxes in 2005.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...060414%2D1.html

Cheney paid $529,636 in taxes in 2005.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offs...060414%2D2.html

Looks like the IRS is over $1.3 million short. Put 'em in jail, even though he gave away his stock option proceeds. Bring the proof that there is something wrong, and put them in jail. Put these bastiges in jail.

When we do that, we could have an honest, politically untainted discussion about economics. On another thread. Maybe. Someday.

FYI Oil stocks in general are up 4X since 1999. Those bastiges - they made 4 times their money in 7 years...jail 'em. Oughta be against the law.

I never said that what they were doing was illegal. I don't care what miniscule percentage of big oil it is, if your making $5 million a year with the piece of paper you own, you're not going to be in a hurry to change that. Give me $5 million this year, and I'll be happy to pay $500,000 in taxes. Heck, that's only 10%. Me, I made under $40,000 and had to pay 28%. There's your economic lesson for you.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Ummm...Domino Pizza had record high profits with a 7.5% profit margin, how come they aren't being investigated with the same ferocity as the oil industry?

Reason, oil AFFECTS people more than a medium pizza. As Einstein stated, "it's all relative". :P

Not necessarily. When the oil distillaries are at 95+% production (maximum production), you can pump more oil into them but it's not really going to increase the amount of available oil to the public, thus prices will no decrease in price.

They did in the '90s. We probably had less distillaries then too.

[wayback]

Just checked back in, and ya know what, Oil Lover

You're right

I didn't substantiate my broadside with any facts

My point was that we're talking about two different paradigms

and in my view (and the view of the majority of climatologists -at least those that are not paid by oil companies and have not resigned in protest at the EPA) all the dickering about prices and supply ignore the larger question of the WISDOM of continuing down this path (not just because it benefits a tiny minority of mostly very old family interests, including the DuPonts, the Bushes, the Sauds.)

A salient comment was made about how far apart reality and perception can get. Read any cogent analysis of american media, and you find that many experts agree that America has the narrowest coverage in the world. We are insular. We don't know or care about the rest of the world, except as a kind of plaything. If you have family serving in Iraq like I do, and they're fighting and dying to maintain this system, you get a broader perspective real quick-like (unless you're afraid to look at it - which I can understand).

and if you can walk into an American grocery store, or drive down a SoCal Hummer/BMW clogged freeway, and pass the oil burning power plants, and NOT see that this is empire, than you should get out more. That's why when a leader like Chavez says "This oil belongs to our country, not Exxon" our media labels him a "threat to democracy in the region". Whos democracy does he threaten by saying "our borders are sovereign"? He threatens corporate control, not democracy.

Of course, you can find numbers to support both sides (that's the peril of watching that foxy "fair and balanced" crew - they prove that stats can be used to prove anything - they are masters of the straw man).

In a way, traveling drum corps is a perfect example of the kind of activity that could only happen if you're playing with other peoples resources. They will have to return to their roots as regional.

Ryan knows me from other boards,(I'm sure he's not surprised by the tone) and I'd like to apologize to him for being part of what diverted this thread into such "un-corps" territory. I'm out. send your hate mail to me.

[ChicagoFan]

I'm always amused by the stereotyped portrait of Big Bad Bush seated at the helm of global oil reserves, manaically controlling production and pricing at will and personal whim. As demonstrated by 81Regiment, such an image is naive and inaccurate, to say the least.

I also find it interesting and rather ironic that opponents of the president typically portray him as a blithering idiot without the sense to tie his own shoe laces yet, when it suits their political agenda, he is magically transformed into an evil genius with the power to alter weather patterns, control our minds, dictate the direction of the stock market, and single-handedly control the global economy.