Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

[scfire86]

Imagine not losing 1/2 your pay check for a year or so.

I've visited countries where people pay little or no taxes. I doubt you would want to live there.

[txgp17]

Because in order for the people doing the work to be able to buy things they need to be paid a wage that will allow them to do just that.

If very few people are making a lot of money, and many people are making very little money, the ability to purchase goods and services is diminshed. It's how an economy works.

[scfire86]

Then how does an economy work o wise one?

[ChiefKN]

Because in order for the people doing the work to be able to buy things they need to be paid a wage that will allow them to do just that.

If very few people are making a lot of money, and many people are making very little money, the ability to purchase goods and services is diminshed. It's how an economy works.

Again.... so what?

If people can't afford goods, they don't buy them and the market adjusts.

It's how an economy works.

[scfire86]

Again.... so what?

If people can't afford goods, they don't buy them and the market adjusts.

It's how an economy works.

You believe that pricing isn't affected by the subsidies you believe the oil companies should receive?

I receive a tax break. Which I agree is an indirect subsidy. But I have to earn the money in order to qualify. In the case of the oil companies, they are given direct subsidies irrespective of their earnings.

Which is a socialist concept. I've been called that and worse on these boards in a derogatory manner. But I guess it's okay if it benefits a group that you approve.

[ChiefKN]

You believe that pricing isn't affected by the subsidies you believe the oil companies should receive?

I receive a tax break. Which I agree is an indirect subsidy. But I have to earn the money in order to qualify. In the case of the oil companies, they are given direct subsidies irrespective of their earnings.

Which is a socialist concept. I've been called that and worse on these boards in a derogatory manner. But I guess it's okay if it benefits a group that you approve.

You can play these games with words all you want.

Calling subsidies to oil companies a socialist concept is stretching the definition and meaning of the concept pretty far. But so be it, call it what you will. Makes no difference to me.

[txgp17]

Then how does an economy work o wise one?

You'll have to be more specific. There are several different types of economies.

You or George have yet to prove it had any impact. There is not one commodities broker who deals in oil futures claiming it to be related.

Why would they admit that their prices are based solely on the concept of selling it at a higher price? That would be akin to a player/referee admitting to points shaving, and it would provide the spark for public opinion to rail against them (even more so than it already has).

The benefit of owning an oil future is only realized when it's sold at a higher price. If the price falls, the owner of a future loses money (or opportunity cost, if they actually intended to use the oil for something). No different than owning a stock that will never pay a dividend. They only way one profits from owning that stock is to sell it at a higher price. It is in their best interests to bid up the price, even if you don't intend to buy anymore of it.

And since I had already posted a report showing that 71% of the oil futures market was held by speculators, it proves that the vast majority of that market lives and dies based on tomorrow's price. If tomorrow's rises, then the speculator eats steak, if it falls he has bologna.

An investment report by Bernstein Global Wealth Management explains it in detail. On Page 15, ...our research indicates that investors’ large-scale buying of oil futures may be artificially propping up the price of crude in the spot market.

And they go on (page 16) to explain what happens if expectations fall: But what would happen if investors’ fascination with crude oil futures were to wane, perhaps as a by-product of that forbidding negative roll return? Passive investment in commodity futures index funds might start to dry up, pressing crude oil prices downward.

That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime. President Bush's announcement to lift the ban changed their attitudes and the results were seen with the price falling by 6.3% on the very day of his announcement. Steven Milloy gets it.

Plus George & I have timing on our side. The price fell within hours of Bush's announcement. Our Economy didn't slow down overnight. The American people didn't collaborate to suddenly start driving less on July 13th, or any day before that. What other event can you put an exact date on that coincides with the July 14th price drop?

And your "10-years to production" song & dance is busted. Some reports show that we could have oil from California in less than a year. Because there the oil is in shallow water, and drilling platforms have been there since before the moratorium was instituted.

If people can't afford goods, they don't buy them and the market adjusts.

It's how an economy works.

I think he ignored the idea that if people can't buy goods, then the price of those goods will fall. These things cycle back and forth.

You believe that pricing isn't affected by the subsidies you believe the oil companies should receive?

I receive a tax break. Which I agree is an indirect subsidy. But I have to earn the money in order to qualify. In the case of the oil companies, they are given direct subsidies irrespective of their earnings.

Which is a socialist concept. I've been called that and worse on these boards in a derogatory manner. But I guess it's okay if it benefits a group that you approve.

A tax break is a subsidy, the Government looses the opportunity to take in taxes, and allows said person/firm to keep the money. I don't approve of it for oil companies. But you use it as justification to prohibit anymore drilling. I agree with you, on halting the subsidies. But there is no logical reason to halt new drilling, based on the fact that they receive existing subsidies.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Calling subsidies to oil companies a socialist concept is stretching the definition and meaning of the concept pretty far.

No its not. Its just plain old lying.

[BryanLoader]

Actually THNozzleman, crude or unrefined oil is not actually toxic or poisonous. Its sure as heck not good for the environment but it is a natural product, (keep in perspective, we're basically burning 100 million year old dinosaur sh*t) It does affect the environment by smothering both flaura and fauna. It biodegrades quite quickly and if you would like, fly to Valdez and see Prince William sound. You would never know there had been a spill. That being said, I still support 100% alternate energy sources, but with an injection of realism. Wind, solar, hydro, just won't ever do it.

Riiiiight...just drill here, there and everywhere, and watch those prices at the pump fall. Why, we should just drill a hole every ten feet all over every wildlife refuge in the world. Screw the animals and the environment. Exxon still hasn't paid for the 1989 Valdez incident that is still poisoning the land and ocean...and that's not even close to the size of numerous other spills. I'll bet those compassionate oil companies will have the price of gasoline back down to 65 cents a gallon in no time! Hell, let's just pay for it ourselves...to hell with the "free market" you guys rant about all the time. Let's just give them billions of our taxpayer dollars so they can continue to get filthy rich raping the earth for a buck. No need for regulation...these guys always have the best interests of the little guy at heart! I mean, Exxon Mobile only raked in a mere 15 billion this quarter. Surely we can help out these struggling companies a little, right? I mean, why invest one thin dime in alternative energy sources; the oil will last forever!

If you think the price-fixing son of a bitches that run the oil companies are going to lower their prices after we pay through the nose for them to drill all those holes you want, you're crazier than I thought you were.

[BryanLoader]

Just as a totally bit of irrelevant information, I believe that term horsehockey originted on the Canadian Prairies as kids would use frozen horse turds as hockey pucks on the frozen sloughs to use play hockey. Them prairies did produce a few fairly decent lads on the rink. I would gues the original "old man of hockey" the great Gordie howe has slapshotted a few horese turds in his time

thanks for watching, and your opinion. i still don't trust it. by the way, i was really digging the word horsehockey. that's a new one for me.

[scfire86]

No its not. Its just plain old lying.

Then what is it? It certainly isn't capitalism.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Then what is it? It certainly isn't capitalism.

I'll say it again. It's lying.

[ScareCrow57]

thanks for watching, and your opinion. i still don't trust it. by the way, i was really digging the word horsehockey. that's a new one for me.

Try watching MASH, the ones with Sherman T Potter in them youngster.

[scfire86]

I'll say it again. It's lying.

What's lying? You claiming to know something?

[BryanLoader]

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the quotation comes from Karl Marx. We all know how well that little governance experiment worked.

it's also the same economy that put pinochet in power, and the reason why south america is moving away from it. what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. brazil and venezeula have paid off their national debt. can america say the same?



have you ever bought fair trade coffee, or chocolate? no socialism involved, all capitalism.



if i apply for jobs in my field where i live, there are obviously jobs in my field where i live. my point is that the economy sucks right now. it's more about who you know and not what you know (in the private sector). i have a friend who has an mba and he can't find a full time job. he works three part-time jobs, one delivering subs. regardless of what my major was, the answer you all would give would be to move. if it were that easy, don't you think i would have done that. i have a son who is type 1 diabetic so my wife and i can't go anytime without health insurance. you all want to be judgemental, and offer up tough love solutions.



listen, i've applied to other jobs outside of the field i've studied in, like the fire dept. being a firefighter was always one of my dreams as a kid, and i had a lot of dreams that i have tried to attain. i don't have a defeatist attitude and i believe i can make it here, where i live.



well, i do have the education i claim (with great references too), and i am having trouble finding a job (in the private sector) in the field i studied regardless of what you believe. i teach in my field and i am totally aware of the pitfalls and setbacks that come with it. i just can't believe how judgemental you all are. a guy is having trouble finding a job and it's my fault. i'm not against moving, if i have a job lined up. otherwise moving would be stupid.



not at all. it could be from hilter or milton friedman. that's why i said it sounds good, because i have no idea of its origin. please enlighten me. do you know the origin of judge not lest ye be judged?