PDA

View Full Version : supply and demand



coachmo
03-31-2012, 12:43 PM
Can someone please explain to me why democrats would be urging the president to tap into the strategic petroleum reserves if current gas prices are being driven up primarily as a result of wall street speculators? Seriously, how can anyone defend the need to increase supply if they truly believe supply is not the problem. Key word is believe. Just wondering.

Buzz
03-31-2012, 03:43 PM
I think the key to it is "who" believes. We know by the prices "who" believes there will be short supply, they are the ones moving the market.

paul young
03-31-2012, 04:36 PM
there is no short supply. the oil companies are simply choosing to export it to keep the supply tight in this country.

someday, perhaps, the speculators will be regulated in a manner that is related to actually buying the oil and taking deliveryof it, rather than buying a piece of paper and trading that. until then........-Paul

Gerry Clinchy
03-31-2012, 09:13 PM
Releasing strategic reserves would be obvious to everyone as a "temporary" increase in supply. Thus, I would not believe that it would have much impact on gas prices. I think I heard quoted somewhere that the reserves are only a 20-day supply.

Not to mention that the govt would then have to replenish the reserves with more expensive oil. Deficit anyone?

Only a "real" increase in supply from additional production ... or impending permanent increase in production, could cause the speculators change course.

Back about 9 mos ago, when prices had gone up, there were tankers sitting offshore with oil ... supply was not the problem, but those who kept that oil in the tankers were betting on price increasing.

Gas here is now 3.89 for regular; and 4.29 for diesel.

coachmo
03-31-2012, 10:35 PM
I completely understand that the reserves are a very short term fix and are designed to be utilized in a national emergency. I was referring as to why the democrats want to tap into them. Are we to believe all of our emergency woes are due to the evil oil companies and greedy speculators?

BonMallari
04-01-2012, 04:10 AM
the speculators do whatever they want because they know the American public doesnt have the nutz to hold their representatives feet to the fire...they know the country has no clear cut energy policy and that we are held hostage by the environmentalists that will not allow drilling and refineries, so the dependence on foreign oil continues

If we ever get a leader that will stand up to the special interest groups, along with a willing Congress, the speculators will lose their azzes and OPEC wouldnt be the force they are right now

its very frustrating that we allow other countries to dictate our markets, when we could control our own destiny

Matt McKenzie
04-01-2012, 08:14 AM
I completely understand that the reserves are a very short term fix and are designed to be utilized in a national emergency. I was referring as to why the democrats want to tap into them. Are we to believe all of our emergency woes are due to the evil oil companies and greedy speculators?

Your point wasn't lost on me.
1. The problem with gas prices isn't supply. Expanding domestic production or increasing the flow of oil from Canada and the Bakken range to the gulf coast refineries won't help because supply is not the problem.
2. Let's open the strategic reserves to increase supply to lower prices.

Perfect leftist logic.

cpj
04-01-2012, 02:37 PM
Bon, in this country we don't stand up to special interest groups, we cater and bow to them.

BonMallari
04-01-2012, 04:14 PM
Bon, in this country we don't stand up to special interest groups, we cater and bow to them.


one of the worst things the founding fathers ever allowed was the lobbyist, they for the most part are nothing more than flesh peddling pimps,opportunists, and a big part of corruption...would not break my heart to see them all gone...even the ones that I like...would be a good start to draining the swamp

Blackstone
04-01-2012, 04:38 PM
one of the worst things the founding fathers ever allowed was the lobbyist, they for the most part are nothing more than flesh peddling pimps,opportunists, and a big part of corruption...would not break my heart to see them all gone...even the ones that I like...would be a good start to draining the swamp

I don't have a problem with lobbist operating in a more controlled environment. I think you should be able to send someone to Washington to present a case for whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. However, lobbists should not be able to offer money, gifts, trips, etc. The presentation should have to be made at a specific time and location, and in front of a group of people or in a public forum. Backroom, under the table deals should not be allowed. Once their case is presented, they should not be allowed to have any further access to, or contact with, Congressmen or Senators in a private setting. If there are questions, they should be submitted and responded to in a public setting.

I just think of these groups like PETA or anti-gun groups. If they can lobby get legislation proposed based on inaccuracies, we need to be able send someone to present our side of the story.

road kill
04-01-2012, 05:22 PM
Can someone please explain to me why democrats would be urging the president to tap into the strategic petroleum reserves if current gas prices are being driven up primarily as a result of wall street speculators? Seriously, how can anyone defend the need to increase supply if they truly believe supply is not the problem. Key word is believe. Just wondering.

Any one bother to answer the question yet?

I believe the op asked why the Democrats would advocate tapping the strategic oil reserve.

I too would love to read this answer.

Thanks in advance!

RK

Franco
04-02-2012, 11:12 AM
Speculatots represent buyers all over the globe, from Foreign countries to farm co-ops to global energy plants. For many, taking delivery at any price is worth more than not having it.

Specualtors also lose money when they take delivery paying more than the current price.

The only reason the current administration would use our Strategic Reserves is to get the price down during an election year!

If one thinks gas at the pump is high now, just wait another 2 - 3 years when the current administrations anti-drilling policy takes affect on supply. Remember, the oil we are producing today is because of the PERMITS isues during the Bush Administration!

coachmo
04-02-2012, 11:57 AM
That's my point exactly for asking the question. It's 100% political. Liberals all run and hide when confronted with the facts or they insert emotion (typically anger) and try to change the discussion.

road kill
04-02-2012, 12:01 PM
That's my point exactly for asking the question. It's 100% political. Liberals all run and hide when confronted with the facts or they insert emotion (typically anger) and try to change the discussion.
I wonder why they are avoiding this thread?
I would love to read thier answer to your question.
It seemed pretty simple and straight forward.

But, alas, avoidance............


RK

paul young
04-02-2012, 12:46 PM
ok, i'll answer, but it's not what you want.....

"liberals" is a derogatory term used on this forum to define anyone who disagrees with either the Tea Party or Republican talking points.

Quite possibly none of the "liberals" are answering because they don't think it's a good idea to use the strategic reserve in this manner. that is the case for me. it would accomplish nothing.

the oil companies and speculators are happy to keep the price high because that will diminish demand by people like us, freeing up more of the supply to be exported and sold at a bigger profit overseas. they win. we lose. the economy stagnates.

Franco, the oil companies don't give a rat's fanny because, ultimately, the permits will be issued at a time in the future when........THE PRICE OF OIL IS HIGHER. then they make even more money.

that's probably the best you can hope for, guys. had to put it out there for my buddy Stan, so he doesn't think i'm ignoring him.-Paul

coachmo
04-02-2012, 12:55 PM
I look at it as either you have views that are liberal or conservative in nature. So as far as it being a derogatory term I guess that would be left up to you to decide. I would agree with you that it is a bad idea to tap into the strategic reserves; however, numerous liberal, progressive, Democrat Senators and Representatives have appealed to the president to do so. All of this being said, you still refuse to answer the question as to why do you think they are asking for the president to do so. Oh yes, blame the speculators again.

road kill
04-02-2012, 02:08 PM
ok, i'll answer, but it's not what you want.....

"liberals" is a derogatory term used on this forum to define anyone who disagrees with either the Tea Party or Republican talking points.

Quite possibly none of the "liberals" are answering because they don't think it's a good idea to use the strategic reserve in this manner. that is the case for me. it would accomplish nothing.

the oil companies and speculators are happy to keep the price high because that will diminish demand by people like us, freeing up more of the supply to be exported and sold at a bigger profit overseas. they win. we lose. the economy stagnates.

Franco, the oil companies don't give a rat's fanny because, ultimately, the permits will be issued at a time in the future when........THE PRICE OF OIL IS HIGHER. then they make even more money.

that's probably the best you can hope for, guys. had to put it out there for my buddy Stan, so he doesn't think i'm ignoring him.-Paul
I don't see you as a progressive or a liberal FWIW.

I see you as a Democrat.
Much like my Dad was.

In my eyes a pretty big difference.
(but there are secular progressives on this site)

In regard to you steppin' up and giving an answer, awesome dude, you got a set!!
I respect that and have told you that.

As far as the startegic oil reserve.....I don't think you need to be Henry Kissinger to realize there is trouble brewing in the oil rich regions of the world right now.....leave it alone.

As far as high prices at the pump?
I look at it as an investment in November!!:D


But what do I know..........your side thinks I want to starve babies and throw old people off of a cliff!!;-)

RK

Franco
04-02-2012, 02:22 PM
ok, i'll answer, but it's not what you want.....

"liberals" is a derogatory term used on this forum to define anyone who disagrees with either the Tea Party or Republican talking points.

Quite possibly none of the "liberals" are answering because they don't think it's a good idea to use the strategic reserve in this manner. that is the case for me. it would accomplish nothing.

the oil companies and speculators are happy to keep the price high because that will diminish demand by people like us, freeing up more of the supply to be exported and sold at a bigger profit overseas. they win. we lose. the economy stagnates.

Franco, the oil companies don't give a rat's fanny because, ultimately, the permits will be issued at a time in the future when........THE PRICE OF OIL IS HIGHER. then they make even more money.

that's probably the best you can hope for, guys. had to put it out there for my buddy Stan, so he doesn't think i'm ignoring him.-Paul

There is zero reality to your statement!

In 2002 when Bush opened up new areas of the gulf for bids, the major oil companys were lined up waiting to bid because they knew they could get the permits allowing them to drill. Which is what they did and much of our domestic production is from these areas. Price also dropped dramatically.

Likewise, they would drill now if they were allowed to but Obama won't let them. The administration refuses to issue new drilling permits for the gulf.

Your emotions get in the way of clear thought with this issue!

P S

I don't think lables like Conservative/Liberal are applicable today. They use to mean something but not any longer. Today, a big spending Liberal that is socially Conservative gets to call himseld a Conservative and no one challenges him on it. What many would have considered Liberal before talk radio redefined what these two lables really mean.

There are Liberals that value personal freedom which goes against what being a Liberal is suppose to mean because they also support big government. There are those that believe in The Constitution that are called whakcos by the right and the left.

They just don't mean anything, anymore.

coachmo
04-02-2012, 03:07 PM
Franco,
This is off topic but since the last few posts have been directed at political views I would have to disagree with your perception of liberalism or conservatism. If you merely use these terms as labels then your point is valid but if your truly have conservative values or liberal values then how can someone be anything but liberal or conservative. This doesn't necessarily equate to a political party.

Franco
04-02-2012, 03:48 PM
Franco,
This is off topic but since the last few posts have been directed at political views I would have to disagree with your perception of liberalism or conservatism. If you merely use these terms as labels then your point is valid but if your truly have conservative values or liberal values then how can someone be anything but liberal or conservative. This doesn't necessarily equate to a political party.

Well, lets take a look at our last two Presidents.

One left office after retiring the national debt. Conservative or Liberal ?
The other left us in over 5 TRILLION in debt. Conservative or Liberal ?
One supported bailouts of private sector buisnesses. Conservative or Liberal ?
The other expanded certain crimes as punishable by death. Conservative or Liberal ?

coachmo
04-02-2012, 04:12 PM
I don't disagree with your assessment of the last two presidents. I guess we are looking at this differently.

Gerry Clinchy
04-02-2012, 04:13 PM
Aside from the fact that releasing strategic oil reserves would really do nothing, as it would only be a temporary change in the supply ... and, remember, the amounts there are only about 20 days' worth ... it surely would appear to be a dumb move when there is so much turmoil in the Middle East.

And Franco is so correct that we won't even really feel the hurt of present lack of production for a few years.

A real energy "policy" would have a "plan". The plan would involve using oil to bridge the gap to the next fuel. Probably natural gas, since coal is definitely out of favor with this administration. The truck market is turning to CNG ... as a result of the cost pressure. And the cost of the engines has come into a range that makes it viable for trucks. That is ingenuity and innovation at work in response to the "market".

The problem with electric cars is that you still need to generate the electricity ... somehow.And NOBODY talks about what that electricity will cost! It might make today's gasoline prices look cheap by the time somebody is willing to talk about what it will cost to run those electric cars.


It seems premature to stifle coal plants until you have something to replace the coal with. The energy policy has no "plan" on how to transition from fossil to alternate fuels. And if the economic engine gets choked, where will the capital come from to make the investment needed for transition. Starving the populace and the economy with unaffordable gasoline prices, just doesn't seem like a "real" plan. Not to mention that it is counter to Mrs. O's battle against childhood obesity: carbs are cheap food. If you need your grocery money for gas, you'll not be feeding the kids better.

It would be so helpful if some of these politicians had once held a job that didn't depend on just raising taxes to make their ends meet.

paul young
04-02-2012, 04:15 PM
There is zero reality to your statement!

In 2002 when Bush opened up new areas of the gulf for bids, the major oil companys were lined up waiting to bid because they knew they could get the permits allowing them to drill. Which is what they did and much of our domestic production is from these areas. Price also dropped dramatically.

Likewise, they would drill now if they were allowed to but Obama won't let them. The administration refuses to issue new drilling permits for the gulf.

Your emotions get in the way of clear thought with this issue!

P S

I don't think lables like Conservative/Liberal are applicable today. They use to mean something but not any longer. Today, a big spending Liberal that is socially Conservative gets to call himseld a Conservative and no one challenges him on it. What many would have considered Liberal before talk radio redefined what these two lables really mean.

There are Liberals that value personal freedom which goes against what being a Liberal is suppose to mean because they also support big government. There are those that believe in The Constitution that are called whakcos by the right and the left.

They just don't mean anything, anymore.

the price of oil has gone up continuously for the last 100 years. look at the graphs (there are at least a hundred to choose from. pick one out that you like.) and ignore the little blips where the the price has dipped for short periods. look at the trend over 10 year increments.

it will continue to go up.

would you rather pump a million barrels of oil when it's $110 per barrel or when it's $120 per barrel? nice round numbers that are easy to work with.

all the while we are using less of it, which leaves more of that million barrels available for export, which will sell at a higher price than it would here.

sure, they'd like to drill now, but they'll like to drill later. hell, they like to drill any time.

i'm not speaking from emotion here. unless you think history is an emotion?-Paul