[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

My family has sold drilling rights on property it owns. The smart thing to do is sell for the right, plus a percentage of whatever is brought up.

Sounds great. So if we drill on public land, when do I as a taxpayer get my percentage of the profits? According to the studies, I'm certainly not going to see it in lower oil prices.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Whuh? I didn't ask who REFUSED to buy oil that is available.

Uh, I thought the whole point of a free market system was to dictate the distribution of scarce resources to those willing to pay the highest price. Generally, as scarcity increases and/or demand increases, the price rises. Again - Economics 101.

With each price increase, there will be more people who want oil but will not get it (or will get less) because of what they are willing or able to pay. That's the way the market dictates who gets the oil and who doesn't. No one said there wasn't any. Just not enough to go around at $2/gallon.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If those formulas were realistic, we would not have oil at double the price in about a year.

Demand has not doubled. Supply has not halved. There is not a shortage of oil - they do currently make more than they sell. Yet, cost has doubled. The increase in demand is about 1.8%. The increase in cost is double. Something does not compute.

Another Econ 101 lesson - supply and demand are not linear. It does not necessarily take a doubling in demand to double the price of a good or service, especially when demand for said good or service is inelastic. Demand for oil is highly inelastic (although it's actually proving to be a bit more elastic than many thought at the $4 threshold in the US). Yes, other factors such as speculation can play a part - an unfortunate side effect of how market rules are set up and not insulated from irrational decision making.

Take a nearly vertical (inelastic) demand curve and shift it outward on a nearly vertical (inelastic) supply curve. See what happens to the equilibrium price.

PLEASE PLEASE take an Economics course if you are going to lecture us on supply and demand.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The technology is not "here today" to give us cheaper power without a huge and significant cost in other places.

Depends how expensive petroleum is to determine what technology is cheaper, doesn't it?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's true - the Dems will cry about OPEC not increasing production while blocking every attempt to increase domestic production. They only whine about the price of crude because they know their constituents care about gas prices. They don't care a bit about the inherent hypocrisy of their stance.

[W]Whine[/W]

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you look at it just as a supply/demand problem, sure - that would make sense. The problem is that IS NOT WHAT IS currently raising prices to double what it was just a year ago. You can't make an excel formula or a powerpoint chart to determine speculation, and that's what is currently responsible for the cost of a barrel of oil. The DOE hasn't a clue what the price of oil might be. It's all a big guess based on traditional supply/demand formulas. If those formulas were realistic, we would not have oil at double the price in about a year.

This is fine. The problem is that your posts show that you are completely unqualified to comment about any of this. Go take an economics class at a community college and come back. If you are in high school, take AP economics. Or maybe read about it on Wikipedia, I don't know. But you've shot yourself in the foot with statements like:

Demand has not doubled. Supply has not halved. There is not a shortage of oil - they do currently make more than they sell. Yet, cost has doubled. The increase in demand is about 1.8%. The increase in cost is double. Something does not compute.

Price does not increase in proportion to the size of the market. I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense.

The technology is not "here today" to give us cheaper power without a huge and significant cost in other places.

Hybrid technology is here today and has been here for a while. If you get 25% better mileage with a hybrid, that's equivalent to saving $0.92 off each gallon of gas with gas at $4.60/gallon. Whereas you are talking about a $0.04/gallon of gas twenty years from now. I don't get it.

Well, heck. I didn't realize that the only thing stopping us from being able to use wind and solar energy for things like automobiles was a lack of desire on the part of Republicans to have taxpayers help pay for those implementing it! You should have said that right off!

This whole thread is about what we Americans as a group need to do to help solve our energy problem. Were you reading some other thread? I guess I'm a dunce here, I don't get it.

[Atomic Rooster]

Saudis: Don't blame us for oil prices

King Abdullah, who called this meeting just two weeks ago, told the assembled crowd that he understood the pain that oil prices were causing, and that, in particular, he was "concerned with the interests of consumers." But while he confirmed the rumors that his country would modestly increase production, he laid the blame for much of the hike in oil prices on the "selfish interests" of speculators.

Saudis: Don't blame us for oil prices - Jun. 23, 2008

So there you have it. The crappish U.S. dollar and the speculators.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Sounds great. So if we drill on public land, when do I as a taxpayer get my percentage of the profits? According to the studies, I'm certainly not going to see it in lower oil prices.

You've not been reading this thread very closely. Noted.

Uh, I thought the whole point of a free market system was to dictate the distribution of scarce resources to those willing to pay the highest price. Generally, as scarcity increases and/or demand increases, the price rises. Again - Economics 101.

Scarcity and value can be artificially inflated. You need to go back to Economics 101. Again, you have to look no further back to the mid-nineties to see what happens when the value of something is overblown due to speculation, and the resultant crash when that value is found not to actually exist based on normal market forces. That's why OPEC is worried and they are increasing production. According to the article quoted above:

"The worry is that high oil prices will further slow economic growth and lead to lower demand for crude worldwide, like what has already begun to happen in some developed countries like the U.S. Even worse, Saudis worry that alternative fuels will become more widespread and efficient, and hurt their own economy."

You see, it doesn't help the Saudis to have artificially high prices. They know it will have negative effects.

Another Econ 101 lesson - supply and demand are not linear. It does not necessarily take a doubling in demand to double the price of a good or service, especially when demand for said good or service is inelastic. Demand for oil is highly inelastic (although it's actually proving to be a bit more elastic than many thought at the $4 threshold in the US). Yes, other factors such as speculation can play a part - an unfortunate side effect of how market rules are set up and not insulated from irrational decision making.

1.8 percent increase. 100% increase in price. Yes, "other factors" are playing a role. It's these "other factors" that need to be addressed first and foremost.

PLEASE PLEASE take an Economics course if you are going to lecture us on supply and demand.

I've taken plenty. They don't seemed to have helped your argument much though. The same fact remains - supply and demand are not what is primarily causing the huge increase in the price of oil.

Originally Posted by tie 

This is fine. The problem is that your posts show that you are completely unqualified to comment about any of this. Go take an economics class at a community college and come back. If you are in high school, take AP economics.

Wow...insults and personal attacks. That makes you look REAL smart!

Price does not increase in proportion to the size of the market. I have no idea where you came up with this nonsense.

I never said it had to. I'm saying that the enormous movement in the markets can in no way be justified by the 1.8 increase in demand. I"m saying it. OPEC is saying it (see link above). George Soros is saying it. Does George Soros need a few basic economic courses as well? Is that his problem? All the people who are pointing to speculators simply need to take more economics courses? Sure. Thanks.

Hybrid technology is here today and has been here for a while. If you get 25% better mileage with a hybrid, that's equivalent to saving $0.92 off each gallon of gas with gas at $4.60/gallon. Whereas you are talking about a $0.04/gallon of gas twenty years from now. I don't get it.

Hybrid technology IS here, but it's still far from perfected. Investment in this type of technology is what is needed IMO. Once they work out the kinks, I think that the market will respond. The popularity of hybrids already is growing yearly with every performance increase. It just needs a few gooses forward in order to be a no-brainer for everyone.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You've not been reading this thread very closely. Noted.

How so? I thought this thread was about the rising price in oil and what we should do about it. Specifically, drilling in ANWR and any other oil reserves. So let's review the deal:

- The US government gives the oil companies permission to drill on OUR (the taxpayers') public land.
- Oil companies drill for oil, get some, and make a profit off it in about 20 years.
- There's little to no impact on oil or gas prices - maybe $0.02 to $0.04 at most. Therefore, there's little to no impact on the economy.

Tell me again, why is this a good deal for Americans?

Scarcity and value can be artificially inflated. You need to go back to Economics 101. Again, you have to look no further back to the mid-nineties to see what happens when the value of something is overblown due to speculation, and the resultant crash when that value is found not to actually exist based on normal market forces. That's why OPEC is worried and they are increasing production. According to the article quoted above:

"The worry is that high oil prices will further slow economic growth and lead to lower demand for crude worldwide, like what has already begun to happen in some developed countries like the U.S. Even worse, Saudis worry that alternative fuels will become more widespread and efficient, and hurt their own economy."

You see, it doesn't help the Saudis to have artificially high prices. They know it will have negative effects.

1.8 percent increase. 100% increase in price. Yes, "other factors" are playing a role. It's these "other factors" that need to be addressed first and foremost.

I've conceded that the speculators can have an impact on prices because of the way the market is set up. It seems the speculators (and OPEC) have taken Economics 101 and you haven't. What would you speculate to happen in the face of a continuous rise in demand for a resource with a relatively static supply? The bottom line is that speculators are speculating on supply and demand - they're trying to corner the market. That's what they do.

I've taken plenty. They don't seemed to have helped your argument much though. The same fact remains - supply and demand are not what is primarily causing the huge increase in the price of oil.

Sure doesn't sound like it. Good thing you're not a speculator.

Yes - some of the run-up is due to speculation? So what? The question is what we do about it.

We could flood the market with supply. Oh, wait -- no we can't. Any new drilling would take 20 years and have a negligible impact. So - we can ask the Saudis and OPEC (or they may be willing on their own). Bush asked, his friends the Saudis said no, thanks. But they may have a change of heart if it changes their own self-interest. If they do, it will be temporary. We'll go back to being wasteful and they'll know they continue to have us hooked for the next run-up. Sounds like fun!

Or, we can reduce demand by getting serious about alternatives. Trust me, speculators would notice that too.

Please don't claim that you have background in economics - you've shown you really know very little.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

There's little to no impact on oil or gas prices - maybe $0.02 to $0.04 at most. Therefore, there's little to no impact on the economy.

BZZT. That's a GUESS at best. You can't estimate oil speculation on a bar graph or chart and that is what is driving the price. The reason speculation has jacked the price up is:

A. As a political tool. People who don't like the west are using their billions to jack up the prices in the marketplace in order to halt capitalistic development (my theory, based on evidence).

B. Speculators see that the US isn't going to do anything to increase output at all, because people not seeing the big picture simply regurgitate the fallcy that oil prices will only change X amount with increased production ignoring the role that speculators play on jacking the prices up unrealistically. They are betting that there isn't going to be ANY increases in the future that will force OPEC to increase on their own. OPEC has increased somewhat during the past couple of days, and eventually that might have a bearing on the market. The US needs to show that they are not beholden to OPEC or speculators will keep their prices high just as tech stock prices where high while speculators where betting that one of them would rise and be ultra-profitable. Once it was clear that most of the market was overvalued, prices sank. Again, it isn't always a supply/demand problem in regards to prices. Economics 101 should have taught you that.

I've conceded that the speculators can have an impact on prices because of the way the market is set up. It seems the speculators (and OPEC) have taken Economics 101 and you haven't. What would you speculate to happen in the face of a continuous rise in demand for a resource with a relatively static supply?

I would guess when that resource was scarce, it would rise. Currently, the oil supply can not be viewed as "scarce" as we produce more than is currently used. We can stop producing oil today and still have enough to last in regards to demand for months. The problem is that the speculators see that OPEC has control and won't increase production significantly without any evidence that they will face any increased competition in the market in the future.

The bottom line is that speculators are speculating on supply and demand - they're trying to corner the market. That's what they do.

Speculators are speculating that OPEC will have ZERO competition and therefore have total control of the market as far as increased production goes. If it is shown that they don't and that the US is serious about increasing it's supply of oil (and decreasing demand by boosting development of things like hybrids) the desire to speculate otherwise is reduced. OPEC will increase supply if they are shown any competition for even a barrel more oil. Currently, they face no such fear.

Yes - some of the run-up is due to speculation? So what? The question is what we do about it.

Increase competition, as I've stated. Increased competition and reducing demand together will boost production due to OPEC's desire to maintain control. The only way to convince speculators and OPEC that there is a reason for OPEC to increase production is to show a willingness to do something about it. It's not just about what happens tomorrow, but what will happen in the future. Speculators are betting nothing will happen tomorrow, or 20 years from now due to politics.

We could flood the market with supply. Oh, wait -- no we can't. Any new drilling would take 20 years and have a negligible impact. So - we can ask the Saudis and OPEC (or they may be willing on their own). Bush asked, his friends the Saudis said no, thanks. But they may have a change of heart if it changes their own self-interest.

My point exactly. The Saudis move when it's in their self interest. It's not in their self interest to allow the US to increase it's production and therefore take some power away from them, and in return will act in it's interest to decrease a need for US increase in production by increasing themselves. It's not just economics, it's politics.

Please don't claim that you have background in economics - you've shown you really know very little.

[kido331]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How so? I thought this thread was about the rising price in oil and what we should do about it. Specifically, drilling in ANWR and any other oil reserves. So let's review the deal:

- The US government gives the oil companies permission to drill on OUR (the taxpayers') public land.
- Oil companies drill for oil, get some, and make a profit off it in about 20 years.
- There's little to no impact on oil or gas prices - maybe $0.02 to $0.04 at most. Therefore, there's little to no impact on the economy.

Tell me again, why is this a good deal for Americans?

American companies paying the US government millions to drill for oil, which will make them billions, and you don't see how this will be to our benefit? Do you honestly think American companies that make a profit just take that cash and bury it in the evil CEO's backyard? You don't think good paying jobs will be created to drill for that oil? You think those who benefit directly will just sit on their money and not in turn buy houses, cars, solar panels, etc.?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

BZZT. That's a GUESS at best. You can't estimate oil speculation on a bar graph or chart and that is what is driving the price. The reason speculation has jacked the price up is:

A. As a political tool. People who don't like the west are using their billions to jack up the prices in the marketplace in order to halt capitalistic development (my theory, based on evidence).

B. Speculators see that the US isn't going to do anything to increase output at all, because people not seeing the big picture simply regurgitate the fallcy that oil prices will only change X amount with increased production ignoring the role that speculators play on jacking the prices up unrealistically. They are betting that there isn't going to be ANY increases in the future that will force OPEC to increase on their own. OPEC has increased somewhat during the past couple of days, and eventually that might have a bearing on the market. The US needs to show that they are not beholden to OPEC or speculators will keep their prices high just as tech stock prices where high while speculators where betting that one of them would rise and be ultra-profitable. Once it was clear that most of the market was overvalued, prices sank. Again, it isn't always a supply/demand problem in regards to prices. Economics 101 should have taught you that.

Yes. It's a guess based on simple math and current prices. So we agree the DOE estimates that the impact on the price will be $0.75/barrel, right? $0.75 / $135 per barrel is roughly equal to $0.02 to $0.04 on $4 gas. I'll concede I'm not accounting for transport costs or refinery overhead.

Now - let me get this straight. You think speculators are speculating based on a political agenda? Wow - do you read a lot of conspiracy theories? It's a REALLY good thing you're not a speculator - you would not be able to afford your internet connection. Speculators are looking to MAKE MONEY. That's it. Pure and simple. They will analyze supply and demand, and are assuming risk for potential profit.

I would guess when that resource was scarce, it would rise. Currently, the oil supply can not be viewed as "scarce" as we produce more than is currently used. We can stop producing oil today and still have enough to last in regards to demand for months. The problem is that the speculators see that OPEC has control and won't increase production significantly without any evidence that they will face any increased competition in the market in the future.

Speculators are speculating that OPEC will have ZERO competition and therefore have total control of the market as far as increased production goes. If it is shown that they don't and that the US is serious about increasing it's supply of oil (and decreasing demand by boosting development of things like hybrids) the desire to speculate otherwise is reduced. OPEC will increase supply if they are shown any competition for even a barrel more oil. Currently, they face no such fear.

Increase competition, as I've stated. Increased competition and reducing demand together will boost production due to OPEC's desire to maintain control. The only way to convince speculators and OPEC that there is a reason for OPEC to increase production is to show a willingness to do something about it. It's not just about what happens tomorrow, but what will happen in the future. Speculators are betting nothing will happen tomorrow, or 20 years from now due to politics.

Um, you do know that Canada, who is not a member of OPEC, is our #1 supplier of oil, right? Wouldn't that qualify as 'competition' for OPEC?

And I'm not exactly sure how an estimated economic impact of $0.75/barrel would qualify as significant competition. Let's say we pumped that oil and decided to sell it more cheaply than OPEC. How long would it last before we'd be back to square one?

Speculators are not speculating based on an OPEC monopoly because it doesn't exist. They are speculating based on future predictions of the oil that can be produced and the oil that will be used. If a speculator thinks that the increase in supply won't be significant, they'd continue to speculate the price up. Again - just based on SUPPLY and DEMAND, no conspiracy theories involved...

My point exactly. The Saudis move when it's in their self interest. It's not in their self interest to allow the US to increase it's production and therefore take some power away from them, and in return will act in it's interest to decrease a need for US increase in production by increasing themselves. It's not just economics, it's politics.

Nope, still just economics. Of course they would do what they could to prevent any significant permanent dip in demand. That's just good business.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by kido331 

American companies paying the US government millions to drill for oil, which will make them billions, and you don't see how this will be to our benefit? Do you honestly think American companies that make a profit just take that cash and bury it in the evil CEO's backyard? You don't think good paying jobs will be created to drill for that oil? You think those who benefit directly will just sit on their money and not in turn buy houses, cars, solar panels, etc.?

Yes - that sounds like a bad deal the way you laid it out. The US government getting millions is a drop in the bucket compared to the budget and debt in the trillions.

And yes, I think the oil companies will keep more than their fair share. What's happened with the recent run-up in prices? Companies' profit margins have stayed roughly the same, but dollar amounts have gone up through no additional value-add from them. You'd think the oil companies would view that as an opportunity to reward investors, invest more in R&D for refinery capacity and other alternative sources, cut prices, etc. Haven't seen that happen.

Also - there's probably a lot of oil there, but once we pump it, it's gone. So I think WHEN we decide to use it is important from a strategic perspective. No one has shown the cost/benefit of doing so now to be favorable. If we get to a point where the benefits outweigh the costs, I'm all for it...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

BZZT. That's a GUESS at best. You can't estimate oil speculation on a bar graph or chart and that is what is driving the price. The reason speculation has jacked the price up is:

A. As a political tool. People who don't like the west are using their billions to jack up the prices in the marketplace in order to halt capitalistic development (my theory, based on evidence).

B. Speculators see that the US isn't going to do anything to increase output at all, because people not seeing the big picture simply regurgitate the fallcy that oil prices will only change X amount with increased production ignoring the role that speculators play on jacking the prices up unrealistically. They are betting that there isn't going to be ANY increases in the future that will force OPEC to increase on their own. OPEC has increased somewhat during the past couple of days, and eventually that might have a bearing on the market. The US needs to show that they are not beholden to OPEC or speculators will keep their prices high just as tech stock prices where high while speculators where betting that one of them would rise and be ultra-profitable. Once it was clear that most of the market was overvalued, prices sank. Again, it isn't always a supply/demand problem in regards to prices. Economics 101 should have taught you that.

The fundamental flaw in your logic is the sentence highlighted above.

The United States is, in fact, beholden to OPEC as they control most of the world's oil and most of the oil we purchase. As long as the United States is the world's largest consumer of oil the US will be beholden to the world's largest producers of oil. While I think we both agree that making the US less beholden to OPEC is a good thing, you want to do that by having us get more of our oil from non-OPEC sources (including from here in the US) whereas I want us to use less oil period.

As long as the US is one of the biggest consumers of oil we will always be beholden to whoever produces it. I don't want that to happen. I don't want the US to be the biggest consumer of oil; I want us to plan to radically alter way of life so that our consumption of oil makes us able to be truly independent of the world's major oil producers. I want us to begin changing our energy consumption patterns now such that within a generation we become the world's biggest consumer of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

But instead of our political leaders talking about getting us off of oil all they do is talk about getting us more oil from different non-OPEC sources. I want alternative sources of oil to not even be in the "solution" for rising oil prices. I want the government to come out and commit to replacing all oil- or gas-fire power plants in this country with wind- or solar-energy "plants". Imagine what that would do to OPEC and the speculators if the President and Congress suddenly decide to commit several billion dollars to building wind-farms* and solar-power fields to begin replacing our oil- and gas-fired power plants. (I would much rather see my tax dollars go towards subsidizing corporate building of alternative energy sources than subsidize drilling for more oil.)

In summary, I think there needs to be a concerted vocal and public effort on the part of the executive and legislative branches of government in this country to push the country towards an oil-reduced future. And I think doing that will send a bigger signal to OPEC than simply trying to find more non-OPEC sources of oil.


*Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee is the leading national researcher in wind-turbine design, let's have them lead a Manhattan-Project-styled program for widespread deployment of wind farms.

[CreepDogg]

Yes. I think we can have a much greater impact on the demand side of the equation than on the supply side.

I'm not opposed to addressing the supply side as well if the benefits outweigh the costs, but that has not been shown to be the case.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

... two axiomatically true premises...

This is woeful tautology.

Stop trying to be clever. You don't wear it well.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow...insults and personal attacks. That makes you look REAL smart!

stupendousman, if somebody says 1+1=3, I'll tell them to take a math class. I don't mean it as an insult, it is just a fact. Your own claims about economics were equally wrong. And it is pretty hard for us to debate economic policies when we can't talk about the economics.

Hybrid technology IS here, but it's still far from perfected. Investment in this type of technology is what is needed IMO. Once they work out the kinks, I think that the market will respond. The popularity of hybrids already is growing yearly with every performance increase. It just needs a few gooses forward in order to be a no-brainer for everyone.

I still don't get it. You claim that the "short-run" solution is drilling for oil in ANWR even though it isn't a solution at all, and it doesn't help for twenty years. Then regarding hybrid technology, you concede that we have today and that it can be a much bigger part of the solution to our oil dependence, but you think we shouldn't do anything with it until it is "perfected."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, if somebody says 1+1=3, I'll tell them to take a math class. I don't mean it as an insult, it is just a fact.

It is an opinion, not backed up with facts. You ignore the fact that oil right now is artificially overpriced, suggest that doing so is an example of what happens with a good "economics" education, and then insult. Not exactly a rational response.

Your own claims about economics were equally wrong. And it is pretty hard for us to debate economic policies when we can't talk about the economics.

Your opinion is noted. Let's see...who do I listen to? George Soros who has made billions based on his knowledge of economics and the billionaires over in Saudia Arabia, or some guy on the internet who assures us he's got all the facts as far as oil and economics go. I'm sorry, I'll take the former.

I still don't get it. You claim that the "short-run" solution is drilling for oil in ANWR even though it isn't a solution at all, and it doesn't help for twenty years.

It doesn't help the situation YOU set up as being the problem. I never claimed it would. I outlined how and why speculators would be moved to act (and OPEC as well) and you just "don't get it". That is very clear.

Then regarding hybrid technology, you concede that we have today and that it can be a much bigger part of the solution to our oil dependence, but you think we shouldn't do anything with it until it is "perfected."

We are doing things with it already. The key is making it so mainstream consumers will see it as the benefit they can't pass up. It isn't there yet.

[peeb]

I've been trying to figure out what is it about this site that attracts a particularly high proportion of monumentally ignorant right-wing trolls. I'm baffled. Anyone have any ideas?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I've been trying to figure out what is it about this site that attracts a particularly high proportion of monumentally ignorant right-wing trolls. I'm baffled. Anyone have any ideas?

Probably the same thing that attracts equally ignorant left wing trolls.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Probably the same thing that attracts equally ignorant left wing trolls.

Erm, except that there really aren't any. I'm not talking simply about people who disagree - I'm talking about people who maintain positions which are obviously factually wrong, and inevitably trot out the same nonsense thread after thread, even when they have been show time and again to be wrong. I think we can all agree that this site harbors an unusually high number of these, and that invariably they are of the far-right persuasion.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It is an opinion, not backed up with facts. You ignore the fact that oil right now is artificially overpriced, suggest that doing so is an example of what happens with a good "economics" education, and then insult. Not exactly a rational response.

Your opinion is noted. Let's see...who do I listen to? George Soros who has made billions based on his knowledge of economics and the billionaires over in Saudia Arabia, or some guy on the internet who assures us he's got all the facts as far as oil and economics go. I'm sorry, I'll take the former.

That's fine, I'm glad you are trying to look for credible sources. But if you are trying to debate things here, then you need to understand the economics. And your claim that prices increase in proportion to the size of the market kind of proves that you don't. Soros definitely never made any such claim. So then your argument consists only of, "I believe this because a billionaire who has a huge economic incentive for me to believe it tells me to believe it." I can't argue with that. What "rational response" are you looking for, really? I tried to explain the economics to you and you refused to listen.

We are doing things with it already. The key is making it so mainstream consumers will see it as the benefit they can't pass up. It isn't there yet.

So you don't want to do anything more with hybrid technology. Why do you want to expand drilling, then? Again, your position is fundamentally illogical. You are advocating a policy that will have only a tiny effect in the very long term, but don't advocate policies that will have a huge effect in the short term. This seems completely backward.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Erm, except that there really aren't any. I'm not talking simply about people who disagree - I'm talking about people who maintain positions which are obviously factually wrong, and inevitably trot out the same nonsense thread after thread, even when they have been show time and again to be wrong. I think we can all agree that this site harbors an unusually high number of these, and that invariably they are of the far-right persuasion.

Here's a poster who doesn't even know what a "troll" on the internet is. He thinks a troll is someone who he believes is "obviously factually wrong" and uses his ignorance of the term to insult others. Would this satisfy the criteria?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We are doing things with it already. The key is making it so mainstream consumers will see it as the benefit they can't pass up. It isn't there yet.

In my area, there's a 3-month waiting list for the hybrid Toyota Prius. It may be anecdotal, but I would say that mainstream consumers are starting to see the benefit...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

That's fine, I'm glad you are trying to look for credible sources. But if you are trying to debate things here, then you need to understand the economics.

I F-ING UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS. That's not the issue here. The issue is your inability to accept that prices are based on things other than JUST supply and demand. That would seem to point towards your misunderstanding of basic economics.

And your claim that prices increase in proportion to the size of the market kind of proves that you don't.

I never said that. I never claimed that they had to be equal. I said that when they are this much out of wack with supply and demand, there usually is a reason OTHER than normal market forces at work to increase the price artificially. I gave a perfect example in tech stocks.

Soros definitely never made any such claim.

Strawman noted. I never made the claim you attributed to me. Soros did say that speculators artificially influencing the price was what happening, though - just as I've pointed out.

So then your argument consists only of, "I believe this because a billionaire who has a huge economic incentive for me to believe it tells me to believe it." I can't argue with that. What "rational response" are you looking for, really? I tried to explain the economics to you and you refused to listen.

I don't take expert advice from people who show that they don't understand even the basics of what they are talking about, then ridicule others for disagreeing.

So you don't want to do anything more with hybrid technology.

Never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. I said that we should be investing in the technology which would make hybrids more appealing to consumers (thus helping the decrease in demand). It's clear you're reading the letters I write, but maybe not listening to the words they form in your own head. What is difficult is to debate economic ideas with people who apparently don't even read the ideas themselves, but rather assign what they think people want to argue based on their own biases. It's clear to me that you are not going to accept any argument which does not show that stopping the use of oil is the only thing that will result in a reduction in price, regardless of the facts Got it.

[CreepDogg]

So the question remains - what evidence is there that drilling in ANWR would impact supply and demand and/or impact speculators' decision making? It's been shown that it will have a negligible effect on overall supply.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I never said that. I never claimed that they had to be equal. I said that when they are this much out of wack with supply and demand, there usually is a reason OTHER than normal market forces at work to increase the price artificially. I gave a perfect example in tech stocks.

You did say that, but I'm glad you are backing away from it now.

Never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. I said that we should be investing in the technology which would make hybrids more appealing to consumers (thus helping the decrease in demand). It's clear you're reading the letters I write, but maybe not listening to the words they form in your own head. What is difficult is to debate economic ideas with people who apparently don't even read the ideas themselves, but rather assign what they think people want to argue based on their own biases. It's clear to me that you are not going to accept any argument which does not show that stopping the use of oil is the only thing that will result in a reduction in price, regardless of the facts Got it.

Your position is that drilling for tiny amounts of oil twenty years from now, enough to satisfy perhaps 2-3% of US demand (less than 1% of global demand), should have a huge effect on oil prices today, cutting prices in half. Then why wouldn't Saudi Arabia announcing a production increase equal to 2.4% of US demand this year have cut prices in half?* You are arguing that about the same amount of increased production much farther in the future will have a much larger effect---I can't follow your logic at all. Why wouldn't, say, passing a law that requires a 6% fleet MPG increase twenty years from now have the same effect (about half our oil is used for transportation, so 6% MPG improvement gives 3% reduced consumption)? Last December we passed a law that requires a 20-40% fleet MPG increase by 2020, and prices didn't drop at all.

* Drilling at ANWR might cause increased production of ~700,000 barrels/day ten years from now, whereas Saudi Arabia just announced a 500,000 barrel/day increase.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...thinks a troll is someone who he believes is "obviously factually wrong" ... bla bla bla

No, I believe that a troll is someone who misrepresents himself to cause offense or annoyance. That's one explanation for the proliferation of what appear to be profoundly ignorant right wing nutters on this board. The other is an actual proliferation of right wing nutters

[Uncle Skeleton]

A troll is someone who posts outrageous things to draw attention to himself. Or as wikipedia puts it: "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]" You definitely do that; you're doing it right now.

[peeb]

That definition seems reasonable. It is one plausible explanation for the behavior of the overwhelmingly right wing fruitbats that are so prevalent here. I'm looking for a serious explanation of why they are so attracted to this board. I think that we can all agree that this board does have more than it's fair share, and that they are either deranged, or pretending to be.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So the question remains - what evidence is there that drilling in ANWR would impact supply and demand and/or impact speculators' decision making? It's been shown that it will have a negligible effect on overall supply.

Past precedent, and the words of those in charge of OPEC themselves. They want nothing that will either decrease demand (and the high price is already doing that) for their oil. Not a drop. Artificially high prices and any increase in output from a third party will do that. They don't want that. They'll react. It's not rocket science. It's happened before.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, I believe that a troll is someone who misrepresents himself to cause offense or annoyance. That's one explanation for the proliferation of what appear to be profoundly ignorant right wing nutters on this board. The other is an actual proliferation of right wing nutters

I believe a troll is someone who goes into threads not to participate or add anything into the conversation, but rather to get people riled up and engage in name calling. Congratulations.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

You did say that, but I'm glad you are backing away from it now.

Please quote where I made that specific claim. That price HAS TO directly correspond with demand.

Your position is that drilling for tiny amounts of oil twenty years from now....

Let me stop you before you start. My position does not rely on a specific date for the start of drilling. Could be tomorrow. Could be 25 years from now. My position requires simply that we show that we are serious about adding output - which according to this thread would result in billions of dollars OPEC members would not be getting. The loss of billions of dollars is quite a motivator from someone who is able to increase production, to do so.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe a troll is someone who goes into threads not to participate or add anything into the conversation, but rather to get people riled up and engage in name calling. Congratulations.

On calling you out? Thank you, but my question is a serious one. What is the reason for the concentration of these numbskulls here?

[Dakar the Fourth]

Start a new thread if you're so concerned about it.

[peeb]

I might, but since this thread typifies the problem, it seems like a good place to explore the issue.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Start a new thread if you're so concerned about it.

I think that the rule is, if we ignore him, he'll go away.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Past precedent,

What past precedent has shown that a negligible increase in supply would impact behavior of speculators and/or the market?

and the words of those in charge of OPEC themselves.

So now we want the words of OPEC leaders to dictate our policy?

They want nothing that will either decrease demand (and the high price is already doing that) for their oil. Not a drop. Artificially high prices and any increase in output from a third party will do that. They don't want that. They'll react. It's not rocket science. It's happened before.

I'm sure they're shaking in their boots over a possible decrease of $0.75/barrel. That's the evidence I've seen. I don't believe that justifies pumping away a key natural resource.

[peeb]

Stupendousman, since you've contributed nothing of interest to this thread, my expectations of your posts are modest, but that one was particularly vacuous. Unless you have some insight into the prevalence of right wing mouth-frothers on these boards, or have something to contribute on another relevant topic, best to sit at the back and listen. You might inadvertently absorb something edifying.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

What past precedent has shown that a negligible increase in supply would impact behavior of speculators and/or the market?

Wrong targets. Past precedent and current claims by OPEC shows that they will react if they think there's a chance of increased competition or a drop in demand. According to news stories, demand is dropping. What is supposed to happen when demand decreases?

So now we want the words of OPEC leaders to dictate our policy?

They essentially do now.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Stupendousman, since you've contributed nothing of interest to this thread, my expectations of your posts are modest, but that one was particularly vacuous. Unless you have some insight into the prevalence of right wing mouth-frothers on these boards, or have something to contribute on another relevant topic, best to sit at the back and listen. You might inadvertently absorb something edifying.

Must...resist...urge...to...feed. Must...resist...urge...to...feed.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wrong targets. Past precedent and current claims by OPEC shows that they will react if they think there's a chance of increased competition or a drop in demand. According to news stories, demand is dropping. What is supposed to happen when demand decreases?

Well, I'm not usually so vain as to quote myself, but I think in this case it's called for.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes. I think we can have a much greater impact on the demand side of the equation than on the supply side.

I'm not opposed to addressing the supply side as well if the benefits outweigh the costs, but that has not been shown to be the case.

So let's review this scenario: demand is down due to high prices, so prices are headed down because OPEC is scared. Why again should we drill?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They essentially do now.

Words or actions?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

So let's review this scenario: demand is down due to high prices, so prices are headed down because OPEC is scared. Why again should we drill?

For the same reason. If OPEC is scared and increases production because of a drop in a few percentage points demand, they'll do the same if they see that we are interested in increasing competition and decreasing demand. It's a dual pronged strategy.

Words or actions?

They have all the cards. We are not allowing ourselves to even be dealt a new hand. They control energy policy until some sort of technology is invented to replace oil with the same sort of efficiency or they see that we are willing to play the game and they make the price more manageable via increased production.

I don't think it can just be done with increased production on our part, or just with trying to decrease demand. The latter being the case until things like hybrids truly start living up to their potential.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the same reason. If OPEC is scared and increases production because of a drop in a few percentage points demand, they'll do the same if they see that we are interested in increasing competition and decreasing demand. It's a dual pronged strategy.


They have all the cards. We are not allowing ourselves to even be dealt a new hand. They control energy policy until some sort of technology is invented to replace oil with the same sort of efficiency or they see that we are willing to play the game and they make the price more manageable via increased production.

I don't think it can just be done with increased production on our part, or just with trying to decrease demand. The latter being the case until things like hybrids truly start living up to their potential.

Let's review the facts again. According to the Department of Energy, drilling would create a price drop of about $0.75/barrel. On the other side, we've got your speculation on what MIGHT happen if we wish for it really hard and just start blindly drilling.

Another fact: you're right in that our oil suppliers, including OPEC, hold all the cards. We consume more oil than we can produce ourselves. This will continue to be true, by a wide margin, even if we drill in ANWR. Again - impact is negligible.

IN THIS CASE, the facts do not support the idea that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs.

I agree with you about having a multi-pronged strategy. AND, I want to be sure that strategy is full of actions that are effective, not just flailing in the breeze. If there's a supply-side strategy that makes sense and provides tangible benefits for the short- and long-term, I'm all for it. This isn't it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Must...resist...urge...to...feed. Must...resist...urge...to...feed.

Ah, much better. The quality of this thread just went up a few percentage points. However, the question still remains - why is this board so disproportionately vexed by these clowns?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the same reason. If OPEC is scared and increases production because of a drop in a few percentage points demand, they'll do the same if they see that we are interested in increasing competition and decreasing demand. It's a dual pronged strategy.

One more thing - again this is faulty economics. If OPEC increases production with the intent of driving prices down, and we start drilling to increase production to drive prices down, the net effect of the lower prices would be an INCREASE in demand. We've shifted the supply curve outward.

This has one effect OPEC loves (increased demand) and one OPEC hates (decreased prices). Yet another illustration of why it's a bad idea to set our policy according to OPEC's whims.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

One more thing - again this is faulty economics. If OPEC increases production with the intent of driving prices down, and we start drilling to increase production to drive prices down, the net effect of the lower prices would be an INCREASE in demand. We've shifted the supply curve outward.

There's a sweet spot to hit, granted. I think having the supply there to generate low prices is a problem I think most would like to have to solve. There's no reason we can't get back to the status quo which was for years around $2 for a gallon of gas.

This has one effect OPEC loves (increased demand) and one OPEC hates (decreased prices). Yet another illustration of why it's a bad idea to set our policy according to OPEC's whims.

When we increase supply, we take power (even a little bit) away from OPEC. The same is true of course when we decrease demand.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Let's review the facts again. According to the Department of Energy, drilling would create a price drop of about $0.75/barrel. On the other side, we've got your speculation on what MIGHT happen if we wish for it really hard and just start blindly drilling.

SPECULATION is what is causing the high prices. I'm speculating based on past precedent and political reality. You can keep regurgitating the same flawed estimates which ignores speculation and pretends it doesn't exist all you like. It won't make it more "real" or relevant.

Another fact: you're right in that our oil suppliers, including OPEC, hold all the cards. We consume more oil than we can produce ourselves. This will continue to be true, by a wide margin, even if we drill in ANWR. Again - impact is negligible.

You keep repeating the same thing without listening to any rebutal. We've consumed more oil than we can produce for years and years and years. There isn't a great difference now than 10-20 years ago when the price of gas hovered between $1 and $2. What has changed is the role of the markets and speculators. We didn't have speculators controlling the amount of the oil market then that we do now. The flaw in your logic is that only an unbiased look at supply/demand matters.

IN THIS CASE, the facts do not support the idea that the benefits of drilling outweigh the costs.

The selected facts you choose without regard to the ones you ignore. Sure.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah, much better. The quality of this thread just went up a few percentage points. However, the question still remains - why is this board so disproportionately vexed by these clowns?

Peeb...he's great for comedic irony if nothing else! Poor, lack of self awareness soul that he is...

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a sweet spot to hit, granted. I think having the supply there to generate low prices is a problem I think most would like to have to solve. There's no reason we can't get back to the status quo which was for years around $2 for a gallon of gas.

'Sweet spot' = Supply/demand equilibrium, which sets the price and quantity demanded.

As for the $2 statement, this is the most flawed statement I've yet seen. Show me any non-oil-producing country where the price is at this level (oil-producing countries defined as those who produce more than they consume - they tend to heavily subsidize). What evidence do you have to suggest this should be the price today? It is not just because you say so.

Europe pays twice what the US does. Canada pays more. Japan pays more. Australia pays more. China, Venezuela, and the Saudis subsidize. What's the magic about $2?

ATTENTION speculators out there - buy gasoline at $2. Stupendousman has set the price!

When we increase supply, we take power (even a little bit) away from OPEC. The same is true of course when we decrease demand.

How so? We still need their production. The only way to take power away from OPEC is energy independence.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

SPECULATION is what is causing the high prices. I'm speculating based on past precedent and political reality. You can keep regurgitating the same flawed estimates which ignores speculation and pretends it doesn't exist all you like. It won't make it more "real" or relevant.

I've conceded that speculation is contributing to the price. What's not clear is how much. You're conjecturing that speculators are going to quiver in their boots and sell off upon hearing of an effort to start up drilling. Again - what makes your conjecture more valid than the DoE estimates?

You keep repeating the same thing without listening to any rebutal. We've consumed more oil than we can produce for years and years and years. There isn't a great difference now than 10-20 years ago when the price of gas hovered between $1 and $2. What has changed is the role of the markets and speculators. We didn't have speculators controlling the amount of the oil market then that we do now. The flaw in your logic is that only an unbiased look at supply/demand matters.

What's changed is we have more competition in that consumption - i.e. worldwide demand is increasing significantly. China's consumption has about tripled in the timeframe you specify (10-20 years) and is expected to double again. That would make it a bit more than half of US consumption - no small shift. Other countries have seen less-severe bumps as well.

What's also changed is that the US dollar has been devalued by continuing low interest rates. This also impacts the price of a world commodity.

You keep saying speculation is the singular cause for the run-up in prices. That is extremely simplistic. What's happened is demand has increased and supply infrastructure has stayed relatively static. That's the fundamental change. Speculators are reacting to the fundamental change, and prices are going up. What you don't demonstrate is how much of the price increase is due to the fundamental shift in the market and how much is due to speculation. What is clear is that the fundamental change is NOT negligible.

The selected facts you choose without regard to the ones you ignore. Sure.

What facts am I ignoring?

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

SPECULATION is what is causing the high prices.

Okay, so let's assume that speculation is responsible for the high prices (for this one post). Then why do you advocate drilling for oil?

I agree that the US drilling for oil will affect OPEC. The US expanding its hybrid initiatives will affect OPEC by much, much more. But why would the US drilling for oil affect the speculators? Saudi Arabia has already announced a production increase nearly equal to the projected peak production at ANWR, and it did almost nothing to affect the speculators.

If speculators are really driving the price, then certainly only OPEC has the production capacity to burst the bubble. You claim that OPEC wants to cut prices in half. Their public statements, aimed at oil consumers, may support that, but their actions certainly don't.

I know you hate it when I pick a sentence you wrote and ask you to explain it in English, because so far you've never replied when I've done that. I guess you don't stand behind your posts. But I'll do it one more time.

We didn't have speculators controlling the amount of the oil market then that we do now.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

If speculators are really driving the price, then certainly only OPEC has the production capacity to burst the bubble. You claim that OPEC wants to cut prices in half. Their public statements, aimed at oil consumers, may support that, but their actions certainly don't.

I know you hate it when I pick a sentence you wrote and ask you to explain it in English, because so far you've never replied when I've done that. I guess you don't stand behind your posts. But I'll do it one more time.

You're making the mistake of trying to reason with someone whose only debating tactic is the logical equivalent of urinating on your shoes.