Magox

YOu can't help me with anything, because you're ignorant when it comes to this subject. And you are gonna try to explain to ME, what a swap dealer is, considering thats who I worked along side with for nearly 8 years, whereas you just looked it up really quick and basically copied it to try to prove you know what you are talking about. NOw thats rich. Listen dipshit, hedgers aren't speculators in the sense that they are'nt looking for upside gains. They hedge based on what we call "pure risk" not "speculative risk". All they are trying to do is offset unforeseen price movements. That's why they hired firms like the one I worked for to try to help them with these strategies. So you're answer is roughly 70% ? Not even half that amount, try again. Dude, just give it up, this is embarrassing.

For your own sake, stop it! You're embarrassing yourself 321 provides data for traders in an easier format to process. Where do you think they get their information from, captain red herring? Dude, you honestly don't know what you were reading. It is the same information I just provided to you, what percentage of all the transactions were made from "WallStreet speculators"? I know the answer, so lets hear it. And then tell me how that backs up your claim. This is a perfect illustration of the lack of understanding you have for the markets. Im sure DC Tom could point to you the contradiction of your statement. Let's put it this way, if you have 1000 market participants routinely bidding on a price in one setting and you have 10,000 market participans in another, in which setting are you going to see more volatility? The one with 1000 or 10,000? Again, you just don't know what you are talking about. In regards to the last link you provided. What have I always said about overshoots? Lets put it this way, where was he price of crude oil 1 week after it hit $147? Where was it 2 weeks after? 1 month? and then 3 month later? I want you to answer this question, so we can all have that information. Obviously I already know the answer, right? So why am I having you provide it for us? Just so I can allow you research the answer so it reinforces the point that I have always made. I really would love for you to read this http://www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/plstudy_24_ism.pdf Its a study done for the CFTC, not done by ideologues, but from real empirical data. Now since it will go against your preconceived thoughts, I'm sure you will mentally resist it, but this is it. All in a nutshell,and you can have it all read in an hour or so. Also an FYI, speculative positions have been curtailed and reformed, and as I told people before they made these reforms, that it wouldn't make a lick a difference, well, I guess we can see that it didn't.

I've gone over this with you ad nauseum You are one thick skulled dude. "financial bets" play virtually NO ROLE in the overall trend of the price. Ok, let me say that again, "financial bets' PLAY NO ROLE in the overall trend of the price. NONE, zero, zilch, nada, nothing. What it has and always done, "financial speculation", is that it times adds short-term froth to the price and sometimes short-term oversold conditions. That's it, nothing else to it, plays no role whatsoever in the trajectory of prices. Hard-head, do you get that? Plays no role, nothing. Last year when you said that Obama tapping the Reservers was going to do the trick, and that is what you implied, I told you that it wouldn't. Did I not? I said that itwould impact the prices for a very short period, and you disagreed. One week later, the price was higher than before the tapping of the reserves. You just don't understand markets, period. Oh and who's adding the premium? really? Did you really just say that? You are one ignorant dude when it comes to oil. why don't you study up on your ****, on real actual data rather than articles that fit your ideology. Here is what we call a CFTC commitment of traders oil, yeah, this is real actual data. http://www.321energy.com/cots.php Look through it genius, and you tell me who is doing most of the buying and selling? Here's a hint, those "wall street speculators" you believe are the major players in the market, aren't nearly the largest entities buying oil and adding premiums to the price. Again, like I told you, you don't understand the concept of actual users and sellers of the product, purchasing their need (oil) by locking in the price today and in the future at a premium due to very real uncertainties that could lead to much higher prices moving forward. YOu just don't understand that concept. That's your problem

This is where your lack of knowledge in how the markets work really become more apparent. You will never understand how they truly work, simply because you're ideological view of the market clouds reason. First off, this is a global market, I've tried to tell you this countless times, but your thick skull just isn't processing this point. Second, the Saudis making up for any lost oil is a good thing, but it doesn't negate the entire price rise. YOu see, there is thing we call "excess spare capacity". The less spare oil capacity there is, the higher the prices will go. Example. (just example numbers) World Demand for oil is 85M barrels a day Current oil suppy CAPACITY is at 88M barrels a day Which doesn't mean the world is supplying 88M barrels, but just that it is capable of producing this amount Iran cuts off lets say 700k barrels a day of oil, now we have 2.3M barrels of excess spare capacity, whereas before we had 3M barrels. Even though there is still enough oil to meet our demand, but now we have less excess spare capacity, which could be wiped out or even further reduced with any other sort of supply disruptions. WHich justifiably, creates a further premium on the price of oil. Then of course there is the threat of a huge supply disruption. It is quite possible that Iran and Israel could go to war, which all sorts of problems can arise from that. For every day the strait of hormutz gets cut off, you are talking about 10M barrels of day. So the threat of that disruption creates a premium. Think of it as insurance terms, lets say auto insurance, you were driving 500 miles a month, the insurance company will give you a lower premium. Now lets say you change jobs and you are now driving 1500 miles a month, your premium has gone up. Why? Because the risk of an accident occuring has now shot up. Even though, nothing has happened yet,the price went up. Same thing with oil, no war has broke out yet, even though they did cut off oil to Europe, but no war yet. But a huge war like that could possibly shoot the price up 50% maybe even more. So the risk of that possibility starts getting bid into the price now. Maybe some producers and users believe the likelyhood of that event is 50%, so they are willing to pay a 10% premium now on the price, rather than paying 50-75% later. But you'll never understand this concept TPS, you just won't. YOu don't understand markets, you don't understand the bidding process, you don't understand the concept of premiums/insurance, You'll just never grasp this concept. In the meantime, you will just sit there on the sidelines, and just chalk it up to good old "wall street" speculation

Is the intent behind conservatives motives to suppress Democratic voters? certainly possible. But in what twisted, (*^*&%^$^#world, is it too much to ask ANYONE to bring a freaking ID to vote for the president of this country?

Unreal, something that was such a HUGE selling point for Obama, and I can't overemphasize how huge it was, where there were so many democrats on the fence on whether or not they would support the bill, that the bill would cost under a trillion dollars over the first ten years. I went in detail about this bill how there were so many accounting tricks to the bill how everything was backloaded, and now we come to find out that over the next 10 years CBO project almost double what Obama promised and lied to us about. And YES, it was a lie. They were dishonest and misled us purposely, I adamantly remember making that point over and over regarding all ther budget trickery and how it was a flat out lie in order to garner support amongst all those democrats that walked the plank for the president. So where is this story being reported? If there is a mention of it, it's not a featured story, yet when the president was lying to us, it was plastered all over the place that it would cost under $1 Trillion. The media SUCKS ASS!!!!! Pathetic

unfortunately you're right.

No, I don't believe its some sort of "brilliant" strategy on Romney's part, I just honestly think that the base genuinely doesn't like him. They don't see him as one of them, he's too plastic for their taste, he isn't uncompromising enough, he's not as socially conservative as they ideally would like, he's a mormon which cannot be discounted when you are dealing with so many righwing evangelicals and lets not forget, he created Romney care. I would say that all these issues could pose problems in the general election, its not as if these voters wont come out to vote for Obama, and I still believe that the vast majority will vote for Romney anyhow, but if 5-10% of these hardcore right wingers don't turn out, that could end up being an aggregate total of 1-2% less for him, and this race I believe could end up being really close. So, I think it's imperative that Romney picks someone that fires up the base, attracts to the latino voter, while not alienating independents. I believe the choice has to appeal to all three of these points. I saw that Rob Portman could possibly be the choice, and even though from a substantive point of view, I believe he is a very bright economic powerhouse, he's too dull, won't fire up the base and worked as the budget man for Bush. So politically speaking he'd be an awful pick. Rubio, Christie, McDonnel from Va.who I like and ran a hell of a campaign n 2009 and would help bring Virginia back to the conservatives and Suzanna Martinez I would say would be the best choices. Having said that, only two of those I believe could attract the latino vote and thats Rubio and Martinez. In regards to Romney care, yep, thats another weak point for Romney and without a doubt it is political liabilty for Obama, but for obvious reasons Romney would not be the best point man to attack him on this issue. So again, his VP selection would have to be the main attack dog,and of course all the SUPER PACS will without a doubt fill in the gaps where Romney lacks.

A couple of those were pretty bad, the bombings aren't nearly as horrific as what we saw over the weekend. Can you get me a link to the first one? That one could be as bad, but out of the examples you listed, none of them are clearly worse than what we just saw.

Give me an example of what an American has done that is worse?

Even this becomes a partisan issue JESUS!!! It was a !@#$ing tragedy! Worst thing an American has done since the war began, and you idiots want to somehow justify it with 9/11 IDIOTS!

What this was, was just typical highschool behavior. On One side you have the latin kids taunting the white kids, and then on the otherside you have the other side taunting the latin kids with U-S-A chants.

Cliff Avril

If Gasoline prices are above $4.50 a gasoline sometime in the midsummer, those words from Chu will come to haunt him. I mean it's not as if Chu made this comment when he was some young bafoon student activist, he said it in Dec of 2008, right before he was chosen to lead the US Energy policy. What he says is a direct extension of what Obama thinks, thats the way it should be viewed. There is no way around it, if I was a campaign or Super Pac strategist, I would wait to unload these words on the campaign trail, over and over and over and over and over. There are a bunch of ways to attack Obama's energy policy. Solyndra, Chevy Volt (at $10,000 a pop cost to taxpayer), other failed green companies, Keystone, drilling permits plummetting and then using his own words of how oil drilling doesn't lead to lower prices. All these things can easiy fit into a narrative of how Obama trumps his green ideology over pragmatism.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. On one hand you say that oil is a globally traded commodity and therefore drilling doesn't lower prices. On the otherhand you state "unless you either produced enough to lower the prices" What the !@#$ does that even mean? To characterize that statement as convoluted doesn't begin to describe my sentiment regarding the gibberish you just laid out. It's an utterly useless comment to make. More drilling doesn't lower prices unless you drill enough to lower prices? That's your argument? Then you say Unless you meant to replace the word "or" with "and" then I could at least begin to see your point, not a logical one, but a point none-the-less. Even so, you would still be incorrect. But for the sake of argument, lets go with "or" as you stated, meaning a completely different direction. I'm not even quite sure where to begin. We use more oil than we domestically produce, that's a fact. So knowing that fact you are suggesting that we would charge the portion that we produce here at a discounted rate? Oh yeah? Who picks up the rest of the tab? Afterall, in order for that to happen it would have to be subsidized by someone. What about the rest of the oil that we have to import? Would that be charged at a different price? If so, I suppose that would mean that we have some gas stations charging $4 a gallon gasoline and others (the subsidized ones) charging $2? Well we know that wouldn't work, so basically the only option at this point would be to subsidize all oil imports as well? How would that work exactly? I suppose the government would cap what the refineries and oil companies in what they could charge, and would have to pay the oil companies the difference between the subsidized and market price. Right? Yeah, that wouldn't be expensive at all. Unless of course you are suggesting that we nationalize the oil companies, therefore doing pretty much what we please with their products. Even this solution would still leave all the unresolved imported barrels of oil that the government would still have to subsidize. It is quite possible that this is what you were talking about considering you mentioned (Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia) But just for ***** and giggles, lets pretend in a Utopia youtube Lybob world, that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless of course you drill enough to lower prices and that all domestic oil could be sold at below market prices, subsidized by the American government. ummm ok, I'm having a hard time moving forward based on this premise, but because I said I would, we'll move forward. The crux of the discussion is whether or not more drilling can lead to lower prices. So what was the point of this statement Well, since context matters, to rehash we've already established that drilling doesn't lower prices, unless you drill enough to lower price and/or that we strictly sell domestic oil below market prices. I think it's kind of obvious, you don't believe that extra drilling doesn't lower prices, I mean you did afterall say as much, and you said implying that what extra drilling achieves are benefits such as employment, royalties and taxes. But no where did you mention lowering prices. Then you go on to say Nowhere did you mention that we should focus on more domestic oil drilling. You mention Saudi and Kuwait production, but nothing about ours. That doesn't make any sense, why leave ourselves in a position to where we have to grovel to the Saudis when we can produce more ourselves for the futur so we aren't quite in this predicament. Same goes for the "Iran rhetoric" argument, (not withstanding your incredibly naive isolationist view that allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon that would very well begin a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would lead to even higher long-term prices) if we produced more oil domestically, that would lessen our reliance of oil from the Middle East. You see, for every extra barrel we produce here at home, that means we can import one less barrel. Yeah, it's true, thats how it works. So if we are producing 13 M barrels a day and importing 10M, meanwhile global oil demand is 85M and production is 88M, if we can increase our production by another 25%, while keeping the demand flat because of conservation policies, that would increase global excess capacity by another 3-5%. What alot of people don't understand is that excess capacity is a huge determinant of prices, the less the excess, the higher the prices and more susceptible we are to large price spikes due to supply disruptions or fear of those disruptions, such as hurricanes, Nigerian militant chaos, middle eastern instability etc. In short, Oil drilling otherwise known as supply isn't the only factor in dictating prices, but it is a pivotal one, and the more we drill, the more supplies we will increase, and the more we increase in our domestic supplies, the better position we will be in attempting to contain higher oil prices. It's true, despite you and the presidents willingness approach to ignoring the basic laws of supply and demand.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-09/buffett-s-netjets-is-countersued-by-u-s-over-unpaid-taxes.html Hmmmm, so he argues that the rich don't pay enough in taxes, so then he sues the government because he thought he was being taxed too high, to only be countersued that he he wasn't taxed enough. Well there you go Warren, you got what you wanted. Pay up B word!

Actually, whats closer to the truth is that you aren't able to effectively express your thoughts without posting a youtube video. But if you wish, I will be more than happy to annoyingly break down your post sentence by sentence.

It's not just the fact that Bill Burton is accepting the $1 Million from Maher, but David AxleRod, the same Axlerod that called Romney a coward for not making a stronger stand against Rush, is himself and arguably Obama's right hand man will soon be appearing on Maher's show. I mean, I think this just goes to show you that not only are they a bunch of hypocrites, but they are so blinded by their own bull **** that they are just incapable of seeing it. I mean really, this is about as hypocritical as it gets. Is this being reported on Politico? Nope, the double standard s clear. Here's a good piece by liberal Kirsten Powers, who not surprisingly was insulted by Olbermann for not towing the party line. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/08/critics-of-rush-limbaugh-ignore-bill-maher-matt-taibbi-misogyny.html

You couldn't be further from the truth. Of course more oil drilling would reduce the price of oil over the mid to long-term. This isn't rocket science, If there are 85 Million barrels of Demand a day for oil and 88 Million barrels of Supply, then there will be a price determined by the market. If you have 85 Million barrels of demand a day and 89 Million barrels of supply a day , based on the same conditions the price will be lower. It's quite amazing to me to see the president attempt to ignore the laws of supply and demand, he really is saying that if you add to supply, that it won't affect prices. Who buys this ****?

You know, you could make a more compelling argument if you weren't so rigid against the idea of "green energy". Sure there is a place for alternative energies, and yes it will need to continue to get developed moving forward, having said that, Obama doesn't understand the laws of supply and demand. He says that for those that are proponents of "drill, drill, drill" and that make claims that it would be the silver bullet solution, are basically lying to you. That's complete and utter nonsense. Of course a massive oil drilling program would have an impact on prices, obviously not over the short-term, but you have to start sometime.

Actually Bill O-Reilly couldn't be farther from the truth, and as an amazing lack of understanding of how the oil markets work. He believes that the oil companies basically fix the prices, he also happens to believe that we should mandate oil companies to not export any of their products. He basically went Hugo Chavez on us.

Come on fellas, that is some pretty funny **** And that too