Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If that were true, and again, I have no reason to doubt its validity, what is to stop the US from going to Venezuela, or some other country that produces 4-7% of the world's oil, and saying, "Hey, you guys cut oil prices, and we'll give you billions of aid, protect you, provide technology, help your kids, etc." and then have oil prices drop the huge amounts that they have risen? 727848[/snapback] Because they can't just drop prices. They could increase production level, by which they could drop prices...but everyone's production is maxed out for the most part. And the US has, in the past, gone to producers and asked "Please increase production so prices don't go too high." And they have (the Saudis were usually pretty good about such things). But this time, they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Because they can't just drop prices. They could increase production level, by which they could drop prices...but everyone's production is maxed out for the most part. And the US has, in the past, gone to producers and asked "Please increase production so prices don't go too high." And they have (the Saudis were usually pretty good about such things). But this time, they can't. 727857[/snapback] Gotcha. Thanks. I don't follow this stuff at all so sometimes it surprises me. I would have thought the total Mid East would have had more than half the world's oil for having so much control over it and able to exert so much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Oddly, I find myself agreeing with you on this one. Cheap gas has led to a number of problems:- People driving SUVs and light trucks, when they should be driving fuel-efficient cars. - Poorly designed "car-only" cities. Basically any new growth city, such as Atlanta, Orlando, Los Angeles, etc., will be very spread out; preventing non-car transportation. - Lack of effort into alternative means of transportation. For example, tax codes and other non-technological problems represent an unnecessary barrier to the creation of a maglev train network. With cheap gas, there's no incentive to eliminate these barriers. I don't like expensive gas, because it disproportionately hurts lower wage earners. However, the U.S. has clearly shown that we're just too complacent and irresponsible to handle cheap gas. 724079[/snapback] And expensive gas will motivate the auto makers to increase fuel efficiency. have you seen a car commercial lately? Fuel efficency has become one of the advertising strategerys. May also motivate the scientific community into developing a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient fuel than the late 19th/early 20th century technology we've been using. Would love to see more effort put into ethanol, that could really cut back our foreign dependence on fuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And expensive gas will motivate the auto makers to increase fuel efficiency. have you seen a car commercial lately? Fuel efficency has become one of the advertising strategerys. 727871[/snapback] I've seen more Vespa's zipping around Rochester in the past week then I've seen in 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I'd be willing to pay $5 a gallon if it meant that this whole mess in the ME could be resolved. 723861[/snapback] Perhaps the UN should just seize some land and create an independent Jewish state. That should calm everything down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Perhaps the UN should just seize some land and create an independent Jewish state. That should calm everything down. 727913[/snapback] Swing and a Miss. The UN didn't seize anything in the 40s. They merely followed up on the Britsh partition plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokinandjokin Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Swing and a Miss. The UN didn't seize anything in the 40s. They merely followed up on the Britsh partition plan. 727915[/snapback] Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Thanks 727918[/snapback] But he's right. Mostly. As for the UN siezing some land...I nominate New Jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 But he's right. Mostly. As for the UN siezing some land...I nominate New Jersey. 727920[/snapback] We have the chance to get rid of Massachushits and you're not taking it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And expensive gas will motivate the auto makers to increase fuel efficiency. have you seen a car commercial lately? Fuel efficency has become one of the advertising strategerys.May also motivate the scientific community into developing a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient fuel than the late 19th/early 20th century technology we've been using. Would love to see more effort put into ethanol, that could really cut back our foreign dependence on fuel 727871[/snapback] Only problem is that ethanol costs a lot of energy to produce as well. Except sugar produces a lot more energy vs. what it costs to extract it. Except we have to protect those American Family Farms™ over at Archer-Daniels-Midland, so, 100% tariffs on sugar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 We have the chance to get rid of Massachushits and you're not taking it? 727964[/snapback] I like Cape Cod. But ditching New Jersey pretty lets us get rid of the EPA, and save us $7B a year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And expensive gas will motivate the auto makers to increase fuel efficiency. have you seen a car commercial lately? Fuel efficency has become one of the advertising strategerys.May also motivate the scientific community into developing a cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient fuel than the late 19th/early 20th century technology we've been using. Would love to see more effort put into ethanol, that could really cut back our foreign dependence on fuel 727871[/snapback] Most newer engines can handle a 10% ethanol mix. Any more and you risk drying/rotting out parts of your engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I'd be willing to pay $5 a gallon if it meant that this whole mess in the ME could be resolved. 723861[/snapback] I couldnt agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 But he's right. Mostly. As for the UN siezing some land...I nominate New Jersey. 727920[/snapback] Hey, hey, there's no need for that. It's bad enough they allow Fits in here. As to KtD's original question, oil is a commodity, and the source of the supply isn't as important as the predictability of supply. If 30% of the market is subject to a major dislocation, the oil markets get hammered. Think of Trading Places, but replace oranges with oil, Mortimer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Hey, hey, there's no need for that. It's bad enough they allow Fits in here. As to KtD's original question, oil is a commodity, and the source of the supply isn't as important as the predictability of supply. If 30% of the market is subject to a major dislocation, the oil markets get hammered. Think of Trading Places, but replace oranges with oil, Mortimer. 728026[/snapback] I didn't want to get that complex. I'm simply not in the mood to explain in detail that the Arabs don't control the price of oil, they control the price of risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 We have the chance to get rid of Massachushits and you're not taking it? 727964[/snapback] Grand Island was on the table at one point. Kinda lacking in ancient Jewish temple stuff, tho' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I'm simply not in the mood to explain in detail that the Arabs don't control the price of oil, they control the price of risk. 728047[/snapback] Oh, well that's reassuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Israel is going after Bush and Cheney? Go Israel! 723233[/snapback] So you perfer Islamic Terrorists to your own President? Good grief, I was no Bill Clintom fan, but it stil pissed me off when I saw the terrorist training films that showed them shooting at Bill's photograph. And the sad thing is this is indeed the mindset of the far-left of this country. "if the muslim terrorists are fighting bush, i am going to pull for them because I hate bush" sorry high sac, this is one case were the enemy of my enemy is really not your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I didn't want to get that complex. I'm simply not in the mood to explain in detail that the Arabs don't control the price of oil, they control the price of risk. 728047[/snapback] There's been a "speculation premium" in oil for the last 18 months or so, too. With the launch of the e-mini crude contrant on GLOBEX, more speculative dollars have entered the oil market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts