emperor72

As a speculator you must understand trend analysis. The trend is upward, and has been since 2001. Remember, Brent futures closed @ just over $28 a barrel on 1/21/2001. You might be able to account for 20% with speculation, but the rest is due to supply issues- as in, we are cross peak. So to be clear, we are never again going to see fuel under $3.50 a gallon. Just imagine that. Again, in 2001 we were paying roughly $1.50 a gallon.

Im going to try to give my analysis as gently as possible- Mr Tully, the author of that article, is either lying through his teeth or is a total moron. My guess is that he is a "Fellow" and the American Petroleum Institute or some other oil industry related think tank. Why? Well, his assertion that part of the reason for high oil prices is "mismanaged oil production" in Russia and Venezuela. Any idea what those two countries have in common? Nationalized oil companies. Now Russia has sold some of its energy assets to private companies but the western energy companies have been shut out. In the case of Venezuela, oil profits are actually being used for the good of the people who live there. To Exxon, BP, etc..this is unacceptable. Oil profits need to go to western investors, not the people who live on the land! So aside from demonizing these two countries, he makes no mention of Hubberts Peak. Oil prices are never going down. I said the same thing here is 2005, and was ridiculed. This is the begining of Peak Oil, and it is going to get worse. Anyone who tells you that this is going to get better is lying to you.

Something is going on with cops pulling people over for tint. I was pulled over <twice> within 72 hours over the weekend for tint. Not speeding, or a moving violation, just tint. Further, Im working in Virginia with a California plate and registration...so, they cant really give me an equiptment violation ticket, but they pulled me anyway. The second time, I was towing my trailer back from the races, going about 50mph with traffic. I figured that there was a directive issued to pull people with tinted windows.

I believe that we are now officially on the downslope of Hubbert's Peak. While I hope this era to really be a plateau long enough for us to "adjust", I fear that will not be the case. $250 a barrel oil is in our future within the next few years.

LOL I dont at all. I just happen to know a little bit about the oil industry, the markets, and politics, as that is sort of the business im in. So, I look at the Federal bailout of Chrysler, which is taxpayer funds, and that is exactly nationalizing. See, we pay the debt incurred by these corporations, while getting nothing in return. Further, Chrysler got itself out of that hole by producing parts for the Pentagon, so there was no "market" forces at work- rather, they were given the chance to save their failing business by taking a massive public subsidy and producing military parts in a no bid contract. And you call that the free market... Then you look at the telecommunications industry which since 1996 has had almost no regulation at all, and is a disaster. And natural gas? Have you not noticed the massive increases in natural gas prices over the last 10 years? It makes our gas price increases look like a cost of living adjustment. If you dont like things nationalized, dont bother going to an airport anytime soon, or taking the subway in NY. So, I dont have a hard on for you, but I have a hard time not correcting blatant falsehoods. I will just stop here. You can continue to believe that we have a free market, and that regulation is bad. Neither is true, and history has proven this but you know otherwise. Cheers.

Couple of points, and Im not picking a fight- ;) Sorry to hear about your job loss. I wish you luck in your search. I think you have a misunderstanding of a few key issues related to the oil majors. The "billions" spent on exploration are more like lots of millions (but anyway). This brings me to this point- what do they do with all that oil that they find? They put it into commodities markets to fetch the highest price. They dont send it right to the refineries, but rather they move it to market. Thats the part that needs to stop. Oil analysts like Matt Simmons have pointed out that aside from Peak Oil (the biggest reason for the price increase) speculators are the reason for the high price. The politics of the OPEC nations are much as they have been for 50 years- aside from the fact that we have a huge intervention force in the Gulf region... Now if the way to stop price speculation in the markets is through nationalization, than I am all for it. Myself, I am much more concerned with how much 200 million Americans pay for fuel, than if a company gets its fair shake at putting their commodity on the market. But hey, thats just me. My main point is in regards to your assertion about interference in the market being a bad thing. How do you explain the massive amounts of subsidy that bid oil gets from the federal government? Isnt that interference in the market? Of course it is. Further, the very idea of a "free market" is almost absurd when you look at it in practice- and not in theory. Our government's primary role is to interfere in the market by subsidizing private corporations. Consider Boeing, Lockheed, Chrysler (1980's), Pfizer, SAIC, Ratheon, GM, etc... If those companies didnt have MASSIVE government subsidies they wouldnt last for a week. And remember, government subsidy is our tax dollars. My point is that there is no such thing as the free market, as our tax dollars prop up so many corporations that I cant list them all in one post. Since oil is essentially the lifeblood of the American economy, we should nationalize it and remove speculation and market trading from the equation. Again, for the purposes of actually helping the people of which the government is supposed to be of, by and for...

Well, it looks like a group of economists have signed a public letter making it clear that the "gas tax holiday" idea is a bad one. Bloomberg News.

How about because the tax is about 20cents per gallon (roughly) for both state and federal. That means that the fuel I just bought @ $3.97 would be $3.57. Big ****ing deal. The price of fuel was about $1.20 per gallon in 2001. So without taxes, the price has gone from roughly $.80 to $3.50 in 7 years. That money goes to fix our roads. Where else is money for our roads going to come from? how about we nationalize the oil companies? I could personally care less if they dont profit. Unless you are working for a huge oil company, I dont imagine anyone would complain...

Chase I thought you were going to run the Vette 6 piston caliper. what happened to that?

I can hardly resist. Bush actually made it very clear that not only did Iraq have nothing to do with 9/11, he also made it quite clear that occupying Iraq was to be a part of the US strategic posture. Google PNAC + Iraq Letter to see Dick Cheney and friends ask Clinton to invade Iraq in 1996. If you really do think that Bush was just misled, and didnt lie, than he would be the first President in history to make such a colossal mistake- which does not speak highly of his abilities. Further, you would be admitting that he was totally incompetent, so have at it. I find it amazing that the one President who has presided over the biggest collapse since the Great Depression can be given not just the benefit of the doubt, but can be classified as a President who does not lie. While the politicians might have gotten us into this war, there were more than 10 million people demonstrating in the streets before it happened, and people like me were called anti-american- by people like you- for pointing out that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Who wound up being correct? Were the 10 million of us better informed than Bush? I can tell you that the stimulus plan didnt work already, because what it offers is an advance on NEXT YEARS TAX RETURN. You are going to have to pay that money back, so it really isnt a tax cut. So, while it may boost spending, it will further impoverish the population. I can also tell you that nuking Cuba will likely kill people, even though we have not done that yet. Am I somehow wrong about that as well. Further, Greenspan had no similar troubles running the economy before 2001. Why is that? Again, I would strongly urge you to actually read about some of these things before you go making a bunch of easily rebuked statements on the internet. Unfortunately for you, it can be counted in nanoseconds how long your assertions hold up when exposed to such insidious commie dirty tricks as the application of logic or the examination of empirical history.

Pretty easy here- I am not a Democrat, nor am I defending Bill Clinton. #1- You claimed that Republicans reduce government. It is proven that this is not true, using the DHS as an example. Next. #2- Bush offered tax cuts during a time of war- the first time in the history of this country. Look at the results: both the highest sustained defecits and the highest debt this country has EVER had. Further, a person making $150,000 in 2002 got approximately $2k extra in refund. That same person has seen fuel prices go from $1.60 to almost $4 a gallon. Hows that tax cut doing now? #3- Clinton did indeed create NAFTA. Absolute monstrosity. As was GATT and GATS before that, created by Bush and Reagan. Again, Im not defending Clinton, so try not to scapegoat him 7 years after he leaves office. You are likely going to say that it takes that long for policies to start working, right? How about the 1992 recession? Reagans fault? How about the mid 90's boom? #4- If you honestly believe that any health care plan that is going to actually benefit the public- you know, us tax paying citizens- is not going to cost money, you really need to lay off the kool aid. #5- The economic stimulus plan DID NOT WORK. In case you missed it, we are in a recession, which was brought on by simple decisions made my the administration. Outside of the Cato Institute and Rush Limbaugh, you cant even find a nominal media figure who does not readily admit this. #6- Again, lets avoid Clinton, whom I loathe. #7- Again with swallowing the Kool Aid. Im assuming you werent married during this entire time as I was, and can tell you that the tax burden on working people is greater now. #8- The Iraq invasion and response to 9/11 is and will be seen as the single biggest foreign policy mistake in world history. Enough said. #9- We still have not gotten Bin Laden. 6 years after the attacks. Who looks worse, Clinton who missed the opportunity (according to you) or Bush, who started WW4, spent almost a Trillion dollars, and bankrupted the country, while cutting taxes. #10- I almost feel like a bit of a bully here, as this is actually the area that I work in. While I can appreciate your ideals and passion for politics, your opinions are not backed up with facts. This makes it difficult for me to continue to respond to you with simple truths that anyone with access to Google can easily find out. So, I really need to withdraw from this conversation, as we dont seem to be making any headway. I wish you the best, and would hope that you remember what I am saying, as our situation continues to deteriorate into a full depression. Best of luck to you.

That is a pretty interesting take on the candidates as well as the parties, and their respective positions. Im a libertarian and I find it amazing that you think that Republicans are for freedom, less government, more personal responsibility, or less taxes. None of those things happens to be true. Again, Im not defending the Democrats, Im just pointing out that your version of what the Republican party is, has no relation to reality. Since 1980, under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, this country has seen more explosive growth in the size of government than at any time in history, including during the implementation of the New Deal. Fact. This is in fact so well documented that a simple Google search will reveal endless sources- from the governments own websites- that will show this. In the last 7 years alone, we have seen the single largest increase in the size of government ever. According to the GAO, without adding government jobs,(and health workers) we would actually have a negative job growth rate since 2001. The Department Of Homeland Security is totally new and dwarfs almost all other agencies. Next is the freedom- regardless of what you think about laws like The Patriot Act 1 & 2, The Military Commissions Act, the repeal of Posse Comitatus, warrantless surveilance, Total Information Awareness...I could go on and on. We are living in what is quickly becoming a police state. However, instead of scaring the population with violence, like would be done in a totalitarian state, they do it with massive amounts of propaganda. You will not be able to find a constitutional lawyer that agrees with your assertion of freedom being a Republican attribute, especially if the last 7 years are factored in. Less taxes is almost laughable, if it werent so sad. For the average family earning under $200,000 a year, their nominal tax rate has actually increased, while taxes for the super wealthy, and large corporations has been reduced dramatically. Taxes dont always come in the form of money removed from your check. The increase in cost of living, including food, fuel, and other energy costs are every bit a tax as an income tax. It might not be called that, but then who cares what they call it when fuel has gone from $1.61 to $3.75 in 5 years. This might not be a problem for you, or maybe it is. Either way, 90% of Americans earn less than $100,000 a year, and for them it hurts. The personal responsibility bit is truly a joke. Just look at what the criminals who looted Enron, Global Crossing, and so on, were sentenced to. Many of them got probation for stealing Billions of dollars from investors. What would happen to you if you ripped off your investors? Lets also look at what our government is now doing with the financial crisis: they are throwing money at large corporation to keep them from sinking under the weight of their mistakes. I dont know what that is called, but it sure isnt the "free market" or "personal responsibility" Or how about our beloved GM? All their top executives are riking in massive amounts of money, certainly much more than 99.9% of us, while their shareholders are getting screwed. Further, I remember that in 1995, during the Gingrich congress, GM paid less in federal income tax than I did. Again, Im no Democrat and I think that Hillary would be a disaster for this country. Im not trying to get you to change your vote. I am simply suggesting that you might want to give some thought to your reasoning for choosing a candidate, as the ones you gave are simply not based in fact.

How are their economic policies different than McCain? (Im just asking, since you said that is what you are basing your vote on)

So this is the criteria that you use to vote for the most powerful person on the planet? We are all ****ed.

"Trys" to debunk everything. www.zeitgeistmovie.com provides both an interactive transcript as well as sources for everything in the movie. Either way, figure it out for yourself. "They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."