About Oil Prices

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../14/gIQAiOodVK_story.html

Interesting bits:

Makes sense that -someone- made the money we all lost.

Almost nobody buys futures for the purpose of receiving the product, that would be weird as hell. You're shocked the largest financial institutions have assets that they've accumulated over time that's closer to what we produce in a single year? Really, that's news?

Not sure what to say about speculation. With any commodity there's a chance of that happening. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a lot of people on this board were doing a little of it.

the think thats wrong about it is that oil to a large degree is a necessity for America. Whats missing is the regulation we have for the other energy industries. The oil industry is bringing financial ruin to the USA more than anything else. Greedy bastards. The Dems like high oil cause they think it will force us to get more energy efficient. We are getting there but it doesn't happen overnight. They would break us for their ideology. The republicans in turn love it cause they are getting filthy rich from it. Thats why neither party is doing crap about it and all of America is suffering.

It is our fault we are dependent on it. Gas is still well below what the market is very much WILLING to pay for it.

its not what people are willing to pay. if i didnt need oil i wouldnt be paying 3.50-4.00 a gallon for it. its a necessity.

yes, it works like this- if you want to work you must buy gas to get there. also to get food. Except for those few yuppys who live in the city next to everything. So ya, it will always be less than we are willing to pay until its more than we make at work- we are near that now. When that happens the economy will totally shut down.

DH: I think you misunderstand the way that the economics-based side of the Dem's would see the issue. Dems don't "want" high oil prices. Here are the more accurate pieces:

1. Dems don't believe we should "subsidize" oil to artificially lower than market prices because that would encourage energy inefficiency.

2. Dems generally favor taxation on oil / gas because it serves a dual purpose of driving energy efficiency and generating revenue. Dems would not prefer $4 / gallon of gas where $3.90 is the market price and $0.10 is tax. They would prefer $4 per gallon gas where $2.50 is the market price and $1.50 is tax. Taxes are then used to invest in infrastructure, energy R&D, public transit (especially energy efficient public transit), etc.

3. Dems don't believe we should blow our local oil stockpiles in the face of a future worldwide shortage or boycott foreign oil which would result in foreign oil prices dropping for other countries.

Caveat - I don't speak for all Dems, just the ones I know. ;)

its not even just transportation. if you live in the northern part of the world, you need to heat your home. i would say most homes currently still run on heating oil furnaces and oil water heaters. typical single family has a 275-330 gallon oil tank, at 3.50 a gallon do the math.

Atryn- that is exactly why the dems will lose the next election. See, MOST people here cannot afford $4 gas. It makes us slaves going to work, grocery store, and home. No money to use any of the crap you want to spend it on. The price is too high for what you want. And why can't we get more energy efficient and still keep the cost down? I agree we should not subsidize the oil industry- esp when they set new record profits every quater while the rest of America in an a depression.

You choose to live away from work, so you choose to pay for gas. I can't imagine ever living so far away from the grocery that I'd have to drive there. That to me is just insanity. I can bike to work, I don't but I certainly can. We chose to build our cities outward instead of up, and that was idiotic. People also choose to drive 30+ minutes to their jobs which is again just mind blowing to me. I made that mistake once, I moved the second my lease was up!

I really doubt most homes still use gas for heating. It is rather sad that people still use water tanks as part of their water heating, but I suppose that is going to be around a lot longer. Still I would guess the vast majority are using electric by now. I've certainly never lived anywhere that used gas heat and I've lived in some pretty old apartment complexes. Also that's natural gas which is a separate resource.

Now the cost of freaking tires is getting insane...just bought two of the cheapest tires I get get and it was over 200 bucks!

Owning a vehicle is still classified as a luxury, not a necessity (yes, they do classify such things). Thus the purchase of gas in order to operate a vehicle is also classified as a luxury.

DH: $4 was an arbitrary number I picked. The ratio was the point, not the price. I'm sorry that wasn't clear for you.

The Republicans are all for continued subsidies for the oil industry via tax breaks, exploration incentives, etc. etc.

People certainly CAN afford $4 gas, as it has been above $4 recently and gas was still selling just fine. Where I am right now it is $3.39 today.

I work from home and my wife, who does commute, drives a hybrid. Those decisions ARE influenced by the price of gas. You ask "why can't we get more energy efficient and still keep the cost down?" -- that's a basic economics question. Some technologies have to reach scale before they reach cost efficiency. So, while current energy efficiency technologies might not make sense for the average consumer or company to implement with $3 / gallon gas, they do make sense to implement with $4 or $5 per gallon gas. As those technologies are more broadly adopted, improved, and scaled, the relative costs of them come down.

1 Litre of oil = 0.614787 USD in my country


3. Dems don't believe we should blow our local oil stockpiles in the face of a future worldwide shortage or boycott foreign oil which would result in foreign oil prices dropping for other countries.

=)

the logic of us saving our oil supply is retARded. before we ever become the last country with oil left there would be a major world war and fight for the remaining resources. So saving yours till the end just makes your country weaker for that fight.

DH: how do you figure that? Assuming your prediction were true, how does having a stockpile of oil make us weaker in a fight for scarce resources?

because before the other nations run out of oil they will attack us just as Japan did in WW2 when we stopped their flow of oil. They hit us before they ran out. Do you think Russia and China will sit back and run out while we have tonz left? Hell no! They would fight us for it before they ran out and lost the ability to fight for it. Thats why saving is a mute point. We are really hurting ourselves by not drilling in the gulf of mexico as much as we should - meanwhile other countries are drilling there as much as they can. We are our own worst enemy.

classified as a luxury where? not in the US, at least not most places. i dont know where you live but here we dont have public transportation, therefore, it IS a necessity

Deer: You're paying for the differential even if you don't recognize it. "Gas" is $4/gal, but the cost of your subsidy to the oil industry is an additional 1% per acre per year on your property taxes. Remove the subsidy, your taxes go down.

Consider why, exactly, the price is too high for the things you want:
1) Republicans push for trillions of free money for their friends, Wall Street
2) Wall Street takes those trillions and bids up the price of raw goods such as rice and corn for their own profit
3) Wal-Mart and other grocery stores charge more to you because they must purchase those goods to sell to you.

This has been repeating over the last 30 years and is one reason why the middle class has been hollowed out.

I don't understand how anyone could actually think a Republican has a clue at anything about economics.. well, except for ways to lie to benefit the top 0.1%. Read Bruce Bartlett's blog.

Hate to break it to you, but it is in fact classed as a luxury in the USA.

"The Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation required the CFTC to eliminate, prevent or diminish excessive oil speculation by Jan. 17, 2011. Months after that deadline, the commission still has failed to enforce the law, and speculators still are making out like bandits."
Sad to say this will never happen until the every day working stiff revolts in a major way

DH: This is getting amusing. Ok, so you are saying that when an inevitable fight for scarce resources comes about, the countries without those scarce resources are stronger because they get to be the aggressors against the countries with stockpiles of it? So it doesn't matter how resource rich a country is compared to another, you believe that just "being a target" makes you weak?

.

I understand Sen. Sanders point, but he ignores the most obvioust point of all that speculation does not always result in price increases--see the housing market example.

you know our stockpile of oils is what we have in the ground ....

Speculation is a two edged sword and smart people with enought power use both of them.

Side A raises prices.
Side B causes the economy to plunge.

Once you have enough power you can control both sides and make money using both strategies.

It always surprises how much people are in support of a free-market economy until they pull up to a gas pump.

Atryn- you must be retarded. I never said what you said i did. I am saying that BEFORE a country run out of natural resources THAT country will make war on those who still have it and more than likely our world as we know it will come to an end. So, the idea of hording NRs is dumb. Use as effectively as economically viable, but not to the extent that you weaken your country. Meanwhile, look for any and all other sources of energy.

Dude, from a practical position, the US ran out of oil years ago, fortunately it looks like we will have enough natural gas to make up for it for a while. By the time the third world runs out of oil, the first world will no longer need it.

according to who? can you cite an official reference where it shows this? or is this just your opinion (and that of people who live in large inner cities with public trans)?

i can assure you it is not a luxury.

I can cite sources, although I will have to look up the direct references.

But there are numerous places where they make such classifications to measure various things like poverty, cost of living, industry classification, and general statistical grouping. All of which place vehicles as luxury items last I checked (which was within the last 2 years, can't see it having changed since then). I used to work on "the poverty reduction strategy" back in the day, which is why I know this.

But in a more general sense, I don't see how you can possibly argue that a car is a necessity. Necessities are just that, necessary for living. A luxury item is something that makes your life easier/more conveniant, but isn't necessary to live. It is easy to see why a car falls into this classification. They make life a lot easier/more conveniant, but you won't die without one. A lot of people go without them and live just fine, thus proving that point.

I have a licence and have driven plenty, but I've never OWNED a car in my life. I currently live in a city of about 350k people and "average" public transit, but I grew up on a farm in a very rural area and I have lived in major cities as well. I don't see how a vehicle is a "necessity" in any of these living conditions, having experienced them all without owning a vehicle.

One could make the arguement "I live in a rural area and it is 20 miles to get to work every day, thus a car is a necessity for me". <-- This arguement does not prove that a vehicle is a necessity. It only makes it a very strong conveniance GIVEN YOUR CHOICE IN WHERE TO LIVE. You could always CHOSE to live closer to work, and alternative modes of transportation could be used (for example, you could bike to work, it would take you about an hour each way).

I will try to find a couple sources for you (It will be listed in government statistical classifications somewhere). But not until I am home from work.

owning a vehicle is a luxury. There is nothing in the constitution of Canada or the United states that states that owning a vehicle is a right.
There is plenty of government assistance with respect to vehicle operation and ownership including roads, enforcement, safety standards, manufacturing etc but that's about it.

well i can see your point, however, by your definition the only "necessity" is food and water.

a house isnt even technically a necessity by those standards as you can live in a cave and sleep on a bed of leaves and burn wood for heat and light. its just silly to say because one group or organizaion classifies a vehicle as a luxury doesnt mean a majority of the rest dont rely on it. sure you can live closer to where you work, who the hell would choose to live in a noisy, crowded area?

what about a person with a handicap, who cant ride a bike or walk? isnt it necessary for them to have a vehicle?

there is nothing that says owning a home is a right in the constitution either.

There isn't enough concentrated power or ownership to do either right now. What has happened in the US is an interesting web of interdependence. Instead of just amassing sales to the US, many oil-producing countries have reinvested in the US thereby leading to finding a pricepoint for oil that doesn't discourage economic expansion, yet maximizes profit.

Pain: Owning a home isn't considered a necessity (nor is it a right, otherwise there are a LOT of people out there having their rights violated at the moment).

Shelter is considered a necessity though, and people do die from "exposure" when going without some form of shelter for too long.

Although constitutional rights aren't a good basis for necessity anyway. Constitutional rights only stipulate what the government can and cannot do in regards to individuals.

The right to food, clothing, and water are not constitutionally protected either, they are necessities though.

A vehicle is never a 'necessity'... that's why we have public transportation (and in the case of your example, the Handi-Bus sytem). And if you choose to live outside of the areas that have a public transportation (or Handi-Bus) system, that's your choice - but it doesn't make your need for a vehicle a 'necessity'.

wow---never----wow--- what if I ---never mind---wow

Example alternatives to "owning a vehicle":

Live / work / shop in a smaller area.
Walk.
Bike.
Public transit.
Private transit (taxi, shuttle, sedan, limo, bus).
Telecommute and have other necessities delivered.
Rent a vehicle when needed.
Ride-share.

Just because the above don't appeal to you does not make them invalid.

You left out crawl. Jog. Jump. Hop. And a number of other potentials.

you people make me laugh. Vehicles are a necessity. Imagine if everyone lived in a city. There would not be food grown or enough "jobs" for everyone. Our society is co- dependent on each other. We require people to be farmers and live in the country where they NEED modern machines, such as cars, trucks, and tractors. Without modern technology we could not grow enough food for you retards living in the city, thus allowing you to bash country folk. Having sex in not in the constitution either but it is required for reproduction (i know some retard will say artificial but you still see my point).

Without all the people who HAVE to have a vehicle to get to work, you yuppy bastards living in the city taking mass transit wouldn't have life as you know it. You would starve. Also, due to the face that many people do take mass transit it helps to keep the cost down for those of us who MUST have a car to get back and forth from work. Remember there are not enough jobs in the City for everyone n the world. So either we are all coe- dependent and there are necessity's or we all walk out to the country and live as the Amish do. However, i do not believe there is enough sustainable land for all of us to live as Amish- therefore, i recommend we just kill off all the mass transit people, thus giving enough "room" for the rest of us to live without any necessities. At least then we will be assured our two necessities of food and water- and there should be more than enough luxury vehicles to go around.

Or we would all be Amish.

wow deerhunter you really are an idiot aren't you.

Personal vehicles, vehicles used for the transportation of goods, and machinery don't fall under the same classification. They are classified completely different. A tractor or a combine are classed similarly as a piece of industrial equipment on a manufacturing floor.

The discussion was about personal vehicles, you aren't really so dense as to not see the distinction, are you?

Also, the majority of goods transportation actually occurs via shipping and rail, although as stated, transport trucks are classed completely different (with different licensing requirements etc), thank you come again.

Lastly, the majority of people that live in rural areas don't actually work in agriculture, they simply live in rural areas and are either a) retired b) work in some compacity in a larger community which they commute to.

When it comes to actual farmers, their produce is picked up by transportation/shipping firms, and generally their supplies (feed etc.) are as well. Most luxury goods can be and are delivered, and staples are available in the many smaller communties that are scattered accross rural areas (which many farmers will actual drive their tractor in to visit, you see it all the time).

education is a constitutional right
the ability to own property/firearms is a constitutional right in the US.

There are rights. And there are necessities (ie food/water/shelter) which you need to live. Personal Vehicle ownership is neither.

Having worked in the P&C insurance industry for 8+ years I can tell you that H4 is 100% correct. The rules applying to personal vehicles are completely different than commercial vehicles using public roads.
Also vehicles that are not used on public roads are a completely different matter entirely. ON top of that a farm combine is not even subject to the same set of rules as a skidoo.
(note I am not a lawyer and I make my statement based on the way insurance operates and gets invalidated by doing illegal things as well as what underwriters have told me)

There are also a fair number of rural people that own various stores (and tend to live near or above them). But I suspect that number is significantly less than the other categories H4 mentioned.

You guys are telling me nothing that i don't already know. In fact i am also aware of the different colored diesel fuel used for off roads. However, that still doe not signify. Maybe not for everyone but for SOME and MANY people personal vehicles ARE a necessity- at least if we are to continue with a 1st world standard of living. I could go on and on but you are either too retarded to understand or so liberal you would loose our country, so long as you could keep your head up and die saying you were eco friendly.

Back to the origonal point, oil speculation (along with all other types of speculation) drive up prices of consumer goods for the middle class. We should raise the taxes on profits from speculation to the point that it is not harming the growth of our country so much. The wealthy would have to turn to other methods of making money (investing in acutaly business growth) and improving the nation.

you have a right to own property, but it does not specify the right to own a home. you can own property and not be allowed to build a home upon it.

Pain is right our country's laws are way over regulated and mostly dumb.

The car Luxury vs. Necessities point is Flawed.

Classifying the Vehicle costs as only Luxury fails to account for the the market discount of Shelter. As the cost of us all living within walking distance of work would make Rental cost excessively higher in urban areas. The expending on a vehicle to live more rural and commute helps reduce the cost of shelter thereby a portion of that VEHICLE COST is in actuality the Cost of Shelter.