Interesting WSJ article on gas prices and Obama

[Deleted member 365]

Just read the article again because he's right. Horrible monetary policy and geopolitical risk. That's the oil story right now. No supply and demand issues exist. The economy is on life support and cheap money is the only thing it has and it naturally seeps into oil markets. Today. I don't care about 100 years into the future. That's not the debate we're having. That's not the debate the article was presenting.

I love how you didn't address half my message. Which, you know, basically torpedoed your ridiculous rant against Obama. Seriously, why didn't you address it? why didn't you consider the supply and demand of oil? And how it's a very limited commodity that will only see less supply and more demand as more countries continue to industrialize?

Actually, you're absolutely right. Gas prices would be sub $2 right now if it weren't for Obama. had McCain been elected, we'd all be driving around in our Hummers without any problem or pain filling up. Our sanctions against Iran, Iran's threats to not sell, the overall instability of the mid-east, supply/demand, speculators taking advantage of this unstable situation to inflate prices... All of nothing to do with this. It's all Obama's fault.

riiiighhhtttt....

And Magical Mitt is gonna wave his wand and solve this? As if gas prices haven't been increasing steadily since 1950? Only during Obama.

You Obama haters are taking your stupidity to a whole new level. Can't wait for him to be President, since he's gonna bring prices down just like every President has done OTHER than Obama!

Prices increased under Bush (when supposedly we went into Iraq for oil lol...) and they're increasing under Obama (despite our fuel production breaking records).
They've been increasing for decades.

The common factor? Oil is going away and more people are using it.

I don't care about 100 years into the future.

You act as if this is an issue that will only become a "problem" in 100 years. Yet, it already is! Your own article cites how the ME's instability creates fluctuations in oil prices which create fluctuations in the price of gas. The problem is already here!

Just imagine, had we in the 70s, been determined to "go green" how much further ahead we'd be? Imagine how much better off we'd be right now if these price fluctuations in oil didn't have any real affect on us because of our complex and varied alternative energy portfolio?

I don't expect you to respond to this, because you're just playing your role. We all know that you don't believe the nonsense you're spewing.

Once again, I encourage you to leave your political ideology at the door and join the rest of us into the 21st century. It's not even an environmental issue anymore to find and develop alternative energies, but an economic. If anything, the bad economy and Arab Spring has emphasized the need to develop this part of the private sector. The 21st century isn't a race on who can drill in the ocean and arctic the most, it's about who can grow and develop alternative energies the fastest and get off oil. Sadly, even in this, the subsidized Chinese solar panel industry is kicking our asses.

As far as the article's criticism of Obama's monetary policy... Ummmmm you do realize that an increase in interest rates RIGHT NOW would be disastrous? We're still trying to revive the real estate industry. Right now, affordable mortgages are more important than shaving a few cents off the price of gas.

Radicals (like duck) need to realize that these simple solutions often placed on bumper stickers (ex. DRILL BABY DRILL) for complex problems doesn't work. More importantly, you need to realize holding onto AM radio political ideologies and interpretations of the Constitution aren't going to help our political situation nor propel us successfully into this century. Oh, and btw, nearly every single economist would have reacted in the same way. High interest rates in a bad economy=a horrific economy making recovery impossible.

 

[TroutBum]

Off topic, but I was listening to Fox News Radio today -- there was NOTHING ELSE ON -- and lo, their tag line is "Fair and Balanced". I'm sure you all have heard this a million times, but today was my first. I literally laughed out loud. How do you people live with yourselves? How do you people support that network? When they have to TELL you how fair and balanced they are, then it's certain that they are anything but. Unbelievable.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Use your head.

My problem is that I don't have multiple voices in my head like you seem to. I've never seen you directly respond to anything the other person says. You just watch Sean Hannity at night or something and then respond to Sean Hannity through Jazzfanz. Guess what? Sean Hannity doesn't post here! Go call his show or something.

It's a commodity that is going bye bye. Every day there is less of it than before.

Oil doesn't trade on the filth in the ground at any moment. It trades on what is, and what will be in 3-month and 6-month windows. They don't care about what's in the ground. That's what stock speculators trade on. Market caps rise and fall based on what is/isn't in the ground. Again, supply and demand doesn't come into play until oil is scarce. That isn't the case right now. Demand is being met and will continue to be so for many years to come.

Barring some devastating global depression that leads to industrial collapse or some epidemic that kills billions, supply will continue to decrease as demand continues to increase.

That's simply untrue. There is plenty of supply to meet demand right now and the foreseeable future.

By the time we build some stupid pipeline or drill in Alaska, the demand will have already outpaced the "new" supply that x pipeline and x well would have created.

Again, what are you talking about? Demand is not outpacing supply right now and it won't be that way for a long time. In fact, the in ground projections grow all the time. New avenues of extracting oil are coming online. There is going to be plenty of oil for the foreseeable future. Drop your scarcity argument, it isn't rooted in facts. You sound like the depopulation idiots.

Of course, there are other variables such as how commodities are sold. But the base supply and demand concept that you repubs worship should be pretty obvious to you. $2 dollar gas isn't coming back. Gas hasn't declined in price substantially and for very long in decades. It's pretty obvious why.

$2 gas would be possible in a world of stable monetary growth and peace. But one other important aspect to consider since you're so intent on playing the role of a futurist is that currencies are going to change again. How much is oil going to cost in a world flooded by special drawing rights, instead of dollars?

.

Where did I go on a rant against Obama or say any of the things you're claiming? You're just a big ****ing wind bag. But it doesn't matter, you'll happily pay whatever prices they want you to pay. Obama doesn't set monetary policy, you bonehead. He does deserve some blame for continued Middle Eastern adventurism however which fits in quite well with the spike of oil all over the place over the past two decades. The nice thing about life is that you can continue to be a big ****ing wind bag and it won't matter. Just don't change careers and move to Dubai to trade oil futures and you might still do okay.

You do have one thing right though, we need a visionary leader that will set this country on a better energy course. I think Obama already has had his chance and proven he's not up to task. Since I don't endorse anybody except Ron Paul and it seems extremely unlikey that he is going to win, I think I have the same expectations for poor energy policy in the near term.

 

[Surely]

"Fed officials and Mr. Obama want to take credit for easy money if stock-market and housing prices rise, but then deny any responsibility if commodity prices rise too, causing food and energy prices to soar for consumers. They can't have it both ways, as not-so-stupid Americans intuitively understand when they buy groceries or gas. This is the double-edged sword of an economic recovery "built to last" on easy money rather than on sound fiscal and regulatory policies."

I think the point of the article is that by printing billions of dollars, Obama has weakened how much a dollar will buy you. Obama wants to take credit for certain things that resulted from the printing, yet deny any negatives that were caused by the printing. Is the article wrong?

 

[Deleted member 365]

My problem is that I don't have multiple voices in my head like you seem to. I've never seen you directly respond to anything the other person says. You just watch Sean Hannity at night or something and then respond to Sean Hannity through Jazzfanz. Guess what? Sean Hannity doesn't post here! Go call his show or something.

Except for this thread, where ALL I've done is respond to the issue and YOU'RE the one bringing up Sean Hannity.

Oil doesn't trade on the filth in the ground at any moment. It trades on what is, and what will be in 3-month and 6-month windows. They don't care about what's in the ground. That's what stock speculators trade on. Market caps rise and fall based on what is/isn't in the ground. Again, supply and demand doesn't come into play until oil is scarce. That isn't the case right now. Demand is being met and will continue to be so for many years to come.

There are small variances, such as your 3-month and 6-month windows. But again, oil is going bye bye.

That's simply untrue. There is plenty of supply to meet demand right now and the foreseeable future.

How so? You have no proof of this. While your own article shows proof of exactly the opposite. An unstable Iran is bringing about record prices. Last year, it was an unstable Syria. So we can either say that someone is simply using these unstable countries as an excuse to raise prices or agree that the supply and demand is so tight that slight variances (such as Iran threatening to not export to the US) could lead to record gas prices.

And expect prices to continue to increase as it becomes more and more in demand with more countries industrializing. Sorry, there's no reversing this direction. Been happenin for decades.

And lastly, there is less oil in this planet today than yesterday. Once again, you fail to address the long-term advantages of getting off this drug.

$2 gas would be possible in a world of stable monetary growth and peace.

When has the world ever had that? You're surely not delusional enough to believe this will happen anytime soon, right?

Because demand is so high and supply so tight, just a threat of a war in the ME is shooting gas prices to record levels. With markets becoming more and more interconnected, you're going to see small disturbances on the other side of the world creating huge waves here in the US.

Obama doesn't set monetary policy, you bonehead.

I didn't say Obama did, your ridiculous article did. So perhaps you should write him?

Once again, for the THIRD time now, you've failed to address the advantages of developing alternative energies. The sooner we get off this oil drug, the better.

Aren't you tired of playing this role?

 

[franklin]

Seriously, why didn't you address it?

Probably because your posts sound like you've been living in a bunker since 1950:

As if gas prices haven't been increasing steadily since 1950?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't understand markets enough to say anything remotely insightful. Appreciating your input on oil is like appreciating a down syndrome man with Parkinson's operating on your brain.

 

[TroutBum]

Probably because your posts sound like you've been living in a bunker since 1950:



You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You don't understand markets enough to say anything remotely insightful. Appreciating your input on oil is like appreciating a down syndrome man with Parkinson's operating on your brain.

All of the fluff aside, do you not agree with him regarding our need to get off oil?

 

[franklin]

I think the point of the article is that by printing billions of dollars, Obama has weakened

Obama doesn't print money, the Federal Reserve does. He can increase the money stock, however, by spending out the nose. And no, the article was not wrong. This is the trade-off we accept for spurring business demand. The other option is to allow prices to drop, releasing spending power for those with jobs. Margins go down some places and the money saved creates jobs elsewhere. Unfortunately, that wasn't an option in this recession. The thing would have fallen appart without government intervention.

The best we can do at this point is learn from mistakes prior to 2008 and manage the money supply much closer to real inflation. There were so many people warning about this prior to the bubble busting (I got burned in the stock market on the housing bust in 2005, well before things really went haywire). We didn't listen then and we're going out of our way to not listen now.

 

[franklin]

All of the fluff aside, do you not agree with him regarding our need to get off oil?

I really don't give a damn either way. Peak oil is to the 20th century what doomsday prophecies were to the 18th. This has been going on for 60 years and I'll adapt to whatever comes my way.

We use so much oil because we produce so much stuff. Take away the oil without a reasonably priced replacement and you'll set living standards back 50 years. I don't worry about it because higher prices will cure higher prices. We've already adapted a lot by adding millions of vehicles on the road over the last 7 years but have used less fuel in them. I also see a ton of demand destruction in the automobile pipeline. I wouldn't be surprised to see passenger fuel consumption drops outpace EIA and IEA best case predictions.

The thing I don't like is that we're going to consume less oil but export more dollars for it. That's the reason I want a $1.00 tax. It would shock the futures markets and oil prices would drop immediately without dropping pump prices pressuring innovation and conservation.

 

[TroutBum]

Fair enough.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I personally can't wait until gas is over 6 or 7 bucks a gallon. Then, and only then, will things change. We're drug addicts, and our drug is oil. If our drug of choice becomes too expensive, or is limited in its supply, then we find something else. It's natural, it happens. As a nation and as a worldwide community, we simply must go forward with alternate energy solutions, and high gas prices is a great way to kick it in the *** and get things going.

I love getting 45mpg in my prius, by the way.

This.

 

[franklin]

Hippies.