Obama: Anyone who says we can lower gas prices by more drilling (1 Viewer)

[David Dodds]

Higher oil prices are all part of the master plan. Yes they hurt us financially and slow our economy a bit. But they KILL countries doing tremendous exporting like China. US citizens then actually buy more American products due to the extra costs associated with importing/transporting goods. This coupled with the plan of continuing to devalue the dollar (massive printing) has all of the other nations on the verge of imploding way faster than we will. High oil also means higher food prices and in places like the Middle East that will lead to instability/revolutions and overthrow of dictators. All part of the master planning going on here.

 

[hxperson]

How do you know its not happening frequently? Have you seen charts for spot brent? Like every other risk asset, its been extremely volatile over the last year, and that kind of volitility can wipe out a lot of people. Also, there are 2 sides to every trade - speculation happens both ways. Your ignorance regarding the financial markets is pretty alarming.

Sorry, not an investor. All I see is gas prices moving one way over an extended period of time ... would love that to stop. That's all.I thought "prices moving one way for too long" = "bubble that must eventually burst". Wondering when the burst is coming.

No worries. I just find it pretty amusing that people can think this way. Full disclosure, I help run a hedge fund. My firm is somewhat well known for being resource and commodity focused. I hear constantly the complete opposite view of what's being expressed here and in the press - mainly, that commodity prices are largely being held DOWN by manipulators, specifically the central banks via their balance sheets and via margin limits on the various commodities exchanges. Many argue commodity prices should be much higher, given money printing going on in the US and other developed markets at the moment.

How are central banks keeping commodity prices down?

Via their balance sheets and the exchanges. ie. selling down their commodity reserves at certain price levels, or raising the margin limits at the CBOE when, for example, the price of silver hits a euphoric level.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Higher oil prices are all part of the master plan. Yes they hurt us financially and slow our economy a bit. But they KILL countries doing tremendous exporting like China. US citizens then actually buy more American products due to the extra costs associated with importing/transporting goods. This coupled with the plan of continuing to devalue the dollar (massive printing) has all of the other nations on the verge of imploding way faster than we will. High oil also means higher food prices and in places like the Middle East that will lead to instability/revolutions and overthrow of dictators. All part of the master planning going on here.

You might have to unpack this one...

 

[Slapdash]

How do you know its not happening frequently? Have you seen charts for spot brent? Like every other risk asset, its been extremely volatile over the last year, and that kind of volitility can wipe out a lot of people. Also, there are 2 sides to every trade - speculation happens both ways. Your ignorance regarding the financial markets is pretty alarming.

Sorry, not an investor. All I see is gas prices moving one way over an extended period of time ... would love that to stop. That's all.I thought "prices moving one way for too long" = "bubble that must eventually burst". Wondering when the burst is coming.

No worries. I just find it pretty amusing that people can think this way. Full disclosure, I help run a hedge fund. My firm is somewhat well known for being resource and commodity focused. I hear constantly the complete opposite view of what's being expressed here and in the press - mainly, that commodity prices are largely being held DOWN by manipulators, specifically the central banks via their balance sheets and via margin limits on the various commodities exchanges. Many argue commodity prices should be much higher, given money printing going on in the US and other developed markets at the moment.

How are central banks keeping commodity prices down?

Via their balance sheets and the exchanges. ie. selling down their commodity reserves at certain price levels, or raising the margin limits at the CBOE when, for example, the price of silver hits a euphoric level.

When you say the central banks are selling commodities, which ones are you talking about? I know most central banks hold a certain amount of gold; do foreign central banks hold a wider mix of commodities? Is the Fed included in this activity with their gold holdings?It isn't my understanding that the Fed controlled or even regulated the CBOE and similar entities. Are you saying they are causing them to raise the margin limits behind the scenes?

Not trying to be contentious, just trying to understand your thinking since this is an argument I haven’t really heard before.

ETA: I do agree with the statement that central banks (the Fed) are keeping commodity prices artificially low, but for different reasons than you have stated here.

 

[hook014]

You're kind of all over the place here- you act as if they never lose money when they clearly do. Unless you have a crystal ball, we don't know whether those betting on higher prices right now will be correct or not.

From where I'm sitting, the speculators act as if they never lose money. There seems to be no caution at all ... no concern that the golden goose's neck can only be wrung so hard.It may be that the speculators don't lose money often enough, or severely enough, or both.

I'm not sure where you're sitting, but again, it's a zero-sum market. When 1 person makes $1, another person loses $1. There were entire firms wiped out during the drop in '08.

If the 1 person making the dollar was a speculator and the one person losing the dollar was a citizen pumping gas, how does the speculator lose the money back?

When you speculate on a commodity you are accepting the product in a set period of time (I think 90 days with oil). Speculators are betting that what they purchased will be worth more when they receive it then when they bought it; when that doesn't happen the person who sold them the notes would of made out better (they sold their notes for more than they would of upon delivery). The person pumping gas into his car is paying full retail and does not figure into the equation.

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.

My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Now what if person A and B are part of the same enterprise? As was the case with the Dutch firm busted a couple years ago. Do we ignore that?

As far as the consumer not entering into the equation, I think that's where we really diverge. If not for that demand they may as well be trading marbles. How can you simply ignore the point of profit?

I fully accept that a weak dollar and the processing cost are a big part of the equation. However, we've heard for years now how the market is not manipulated at all and these fluctuations are natural. Yet people ignore when even Goldman sends out a " Hey, we're not the crooks this time" statement designed to push any investigation to another firm.

Who's really being naive here?

 

[David Dodds]

Higher oil prices are all part of the master plan. Yes they hurt us financially and slow our economy a bit. But they KILL countries doing tremendous exporting like China. US citizens then actually buy more American products due to the extra costs associated with importing/transporting goods. This coupled with the plan of continuing to devalue the dollar (massive printing) has all of the other nations on the verge of imploding way faster than we will. High oil also means higher food prices and in places like the Middle East that will lead to instability/revolutions and overthrow of dictators. All part of the master planning going on here.

You might have to unpack this one...

Not much to unpack.Emerging countries spend less on labor than US. This has led to most manufacturing jobs going overseas. If you want to get those jobs back in America, you need these things to happen to swing the balance back in our favor:

1. A weak US dollar

2. High oil/transportation costs

 

[hxperson]

Sorry, when I say central banks, I really mean governments, which, of course, own reserves and inventories of all kinds of commodities. I say central banks because they generally are the ones who make the decisions on these things due to their goals on fx, inflation, and unemployement, which commodity prices have a major influence on.

And yes, there are those who think the central banks are influenceing the exchanges behind the scenes.

Keep in mind, this isn't my viewpoint, its just something I hear often.

 

[Slapdash]

Sorry, when I say central banks, I really mean governments, which, of course, own reserves and inventories of all kinds of commodities. I say central banks because they generally are the ones who make the decisions on these things due to their goals on fx, inflation, and unemployement, which commodity prices have a major influence on.And yes, there are those who think the central banks are influenceing the exchanges behind the scenes. Keep in mind, this isn't my viewpoint, its just something I hear often.

Ok, interesting. Thanks for explanation.

 

[humpback]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

 

[NCCommish]

Didn't I just see Hillary Clinton on the news talking about our new joint venture with Mexico to drill in the Gulf?

Me thinks the speculators are fleecing us again.

This is exactly what the Administration needs to do to reign in speculators, make them think that more product is coming into the market (even though it would be a decade before any plan led to actual oil); the fact it is Clinton allows Obama to preserve his environmental ties.

Demand is already down. Production is already up. This isn't about supply and demand at this point.

It's about expected supply and demand. It's about what's happening in Iran. It's about LTRO. It's about the possibility of QE3. Its about a myriad of other things as well.

Demand is expected to decline based on ongoing economic issues and increasing efficiency in autos. Iran is an excuse. The LTRO is expected to be more of the same no real change or disruption. Unless the economy tanks there will be no QE3 according to the Fed. And the myriad other things it's about is prices all out of whack with expected supply and demand.For those wondering about the acronyms. LTRO is the acronym for the long-term refinancing operation by the European Central Bank. And QE3 refers to a 3rd round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed.

No offense, but you're just giving your biased opinion here. You have no idea if demand is going to decline, what is going to happen in Iran, LTRO, QE3, or anything else. Clearly other people are betting that you're wrong. If you're right, then prices will fall back down.

LTRO:

RBS surveyed 160 bond investors and found on average the group expects next week’s take-up for the ECB’s money manna to be €574 billion. That would be an increase from the €489 billion hoovered up by banks in December. Expectations ranged from €201 billion to €1.437 trillion.

So more of the same according to people not me.Demand at least as it applies to the US:

U.S. motorists have bought less gasoline every week for the past 48 weeks, according to a survey published Wednesday by MasterCard SpendingPulse. At the same time, prices have risen. Those trends should continue, say industry analysts.

So demand continues down but prices continue up anyway. So much for supply and demand.

The Federal Reserve should only embark on a third round of large-scale bond purchases if the US economy deteriorates and inflation drops, and we are not there yet, a top Fed official said on

Friday. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard - who added that he would be willing to adopt a single Fed mandate - said now is a "natural time" for the central bank to pause and await more data given the economy and labor market are looking better.

This seems to be the prevailing thought on QE3As far as Iran goes if the embargo were take every bit of Iran's oil off the European market and no one took up the slack we would be looking at a 4-5 dollar rise in oil prices. Total. That's been more than factored in by now.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think I would take Bullard as the prevailing throught on QE3.

 

[humpback]

Didn't I just see Hillary Clinton on the news talking about our new joint venture with Mexico to drill in the Gulf?

Me thinks the speculators are fleecing us again.

This is exactly what the Administration needs to do to reign in speculators, make them think that more product is coming into the market (even though it would be a decade before any plan led to actual oil); the fact it is Clinton allows Obama to preserve his environmental ties.

Demand is already down. Production is already up. This isn't about supply and demand at this point.

It's about expected supply and demand. It's about what's happening in Iran. It's about LTRO. It's about the possibility of QE3. Its about a myriad of other things as well.

Demand is expected to decline based on ongoing economic issues and increasing efficiency in autos. Iran is an excuse. The LTRO is expected to be more of the same no real change or disruption. Unless the economy tanks there will be no QE3 according to the Fed. And the myriad other things it's about is prices all out of whack with expected supply and demand.For those wondering about the acronyms. LTRO is the acronym for the long-term refinancing operation by the European Central Bank. And QE3 refers to a 3rd round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed.

No offense, but you're just giving your biased opinion here. You have no idea if demand is going to decline, what is going to happen in Iran, LTRO, QE3, or anything else. Clearly other people are betting that you're wrong. If you're right, then prices will fall back down.

LTRO:

RBS surveyed 160 bond investors and found on average the group expects next week’s take-up for the ECB’s money manna to be €574 billion. That would be an increase from the €489 billion hoovered up by banks in December. Expectations ranged from €201 billion to €1.437 trillion.

So more of the same according to people not me.Demand at least as it applies to the US:

U.S. motorists have bought less gasoline every week for the past 48 weeks, according to a survey published Wednesday by MasterCard SpendingPulse. At the same time, prices have risen. Those trends should continue, say industry analysts.

So demand continues down but prices continue up anyway. So much for supply and demand.

The Federal Reserve should only embark on a third round of large-scale bond purchases if the US economy deteriorates and inflation drops, and we are not there yet, a top Fed official said on

Friday. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard - who added that he would be willing to adopt a single Fed mandate - said now is a "natural time" for the central bank to pause and await more data given the economy and labor market are looking better.

This seems to be the prevailing thought on QE3As far as Iran goes if the embargo were take every bit of Iran's oil off the European market and no one took up the slack we would be looking at a 4-5 dollar rise in oil prices. Total. That's been more than factored in by now.

I didn't doubt you could find a few opinions that support yours. I'm sure you can find more if you wanted as well. Doesn't mean any of them knows what is going to happen. Oh, and demand for gas in the US <> demand for global oil.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't think I would take Bullard as the prevailing throught on QE3.

He a centrist but given the other things we've heard I think it's likely he's right here. I guess we'll really know more over the next couple of days when several Fed folks will be speaking on the subject. But if I was betting I'd bet against any move at this time. And my main point was this isn't all just my opinion I pulled out of thin air.

 

[NCCommish]

I didn't doubt you could find a few opinions that support yours. I'm sure you can find more if you wanted as well. Doesn't mean any of them knows what is going to happen. Oh, and demand for gas in the US <> demand for global oil.

Well all you seem to have is your personal opinion whatever it may be. Of course the difference is I laid mine out and then backed it up with more than smilies.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't think I would take Bullard as the prevailing throught on QE3.

He a centrist but given the other things we've heard I think it's likely he's right here. I guess we'll really know more over the next couple of days when several Fed folks will be speaking on the subject. But if I was betting I'd bet against any move at this time. And my main point was this isn't all just my opinion I pulled out of thin air.

I would suggest not putting too much stock in things regional presidents say. Bernanke rules the roost and he knows that the economy needs easier money. It is only a political question of whether he can get away with it, he has the support of the FOMC. It is his statements that carry weight.

 

[pittstownkiller]

You're kind of all over the place here- you act as if they never lose money when they clearly do. Unless you have a crystal ball, we don't know whether those betting on higher prices right now will be correct or not.

From where I'm sitting, the speculators act as if they never lose money. There seems to be no caution at all ... no concern that the golden goose's neck can only be wrung so hard.It may be that the speculators don't lose money often enough, or severely enough, or both.

I'm not sure where you're sitting, but again, it's a zero-sum market. When 1 person makes $1, another person loses $1. There were entire firms wiped out during the drop in '08.

If the 1 person making the dollar was a speculator and the one person losing the dollar was a citizen pumping gas, how does the speculator lose the money back?

When you speculate on a commodity you are accepting the product in a set period of time (I think 90 days with oil). Speculators are betting that what they purchased will be worth more when they receive it then when they bought it; when that doesn't happen the person who sold them the notes would of made out better (they sold their notes for more than they would of upon delivery). The person pumping gas into his car is paying full retail and does not figure into the equation.

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.

My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Now what if person A and B are part of the same enterprise? As was the case with the Dutch firm busted a couple years ago. Do we ignore that?

As far as the consumer not entering into the equation, I think that's where we really diverge. If not for that demand they may as well be trading marbles. How can you simply ignore the point of profit?

I fully accept that a weak dollar and the processing cost are a big part of the equation. However, we've heard for years now how the market is not manipulated at all and these fluctuations are natural. Yet people ignore when even Goldman sends out a " Hey, we're not the crooks this time" statement designed to push any investigation to another firm.

Who's really being naive here?

Sorry if I insulted you with my commodities primer. I think you are the one being naive here; if you want to make your point, as a consumer, don't participate in energy related activities but for the rest of America, every single person needs energy. The demand for energy is the same as the demand for water, a necessity. The end point is exactly that, the prices are figured out well before they get there. is there a breaking point, of course, but that won't be decided by the guy with the pump in his hand.As for your example what if person B needs to move his product, when he has to sell to person C, and C is only offering $85bbl?

 

[hxperson]

Demand is expected to decline based on ongoing economic issues and increasing efficiency in autos. Iran is an excuse. The LTRO is expected to be more of the same no real change or disruption. Unless the economy tanks there will be no QE3 according to the Fed. And the myriad other things it's about is prices all out of whack with expected supply and demand.For those wondering about the acronyms. LTRO is the acronym for the long-term refinancing operation by the European Central Bank. And QE3 refers to a 3rd round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed.

No offense, but you're just giving your biased opinion here. You have no idea if demand is going to decline, what is going to happen in Iran, LTRO, QE3, or anything else. Clearly other people are betting that you're wrong. If you're right, then prices will fall back down.

LTRO:

RBS surveyed 160 bond investors and found on average the group expects next week’s take-up for the ECB’s money manna to be €574 billion. That would be an increase from the €489 billion hoovered up by banks in December. Expectations ranged from €201 billion to €1.437 trillion.

So more of the same according to people not me.Demand at least as it applies to the US:

U.S. motorists have bought less gasoline every week for the past 48 weeks, according to a survey published Wednesday by MasterCard SpendingPulse. At the same time, prices have risen. Those trends should continue, say industry analysts.

So demand continues down but prices continue up anyway. So much for supply and demand.

The Federal Reserve should only embark on a third round of large-scale bond purchases if the US economy deteriorates and inflation drops, and we are not there yet, a top Fed official said onFriday. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard - who added that he would be willing to adopt a single Fed mandate - said now is a "natural time" for the central bank to pause and await more data given the economy and labor market are looking better.

This seems to be the prevailing thought on QE3As far as Iran goes if the embargo were take every bit of Iran's oil off the European market and no one took up the slack we would be looking at a 4-5 dollar rise in oil prices. Total. That's been more than factored in by now.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I find it pointless to argue with people in here about things like this, but I'll just throw out these points.1. Just because the introduction, and ongoing use of, LTRO had a certain, immediate impact on oil prices, it doesn't mean this will not change over time. I think you are oversimplifying a multi-factor relationship.2. Did you check out the breakdown of Fed members who voted to keep rates at current lvls beyond 2014, vs. those who voted to raise rates before then? While the data has been surprisingly good, the Fed is still dovishly biased.3. A conflict in Iran could result in regional instability. The potential disruption that would cause could go beyond just Iran's oil production.4. What about oil demand outside of the US? A recession in China is probable, but even then we are talking 6-7% GDP growth.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Thank God Obama's reelection campaign has finally revealed the true cause of high gas prices:

In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.

Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

So in the hours before Romney courts two men obsessed with making Barack Obama a one-term president, let’s see how many of us can chip in $2 or more to the Two-Term Fund.

This number will update every five minutes to show how many people give in the 24 hours until Romney greets the Kochs:

Here’s what Mitt Romney told his supporters just after his victory in the Florida GOP primary:

“We must not forget what this election is really about: defeating Barack Obama.”

Pitch in $2 or more over the next 24 hours to show that, while that message may fire up two oil-industry billionaires, it’s also one that plenty of us are tired of hearing:

https://donate.barackobama.com/The-Two-Term-Fund

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina

Campaign Manager

Obama for America

 

[humpback]

I didn't doubt you could find a few opinions that support yours. I'm sure you can find more if you wanted as well. Doesn't mean any of them knows what is going to happen. Oh, and demand for gas in the US <> demand for global oil.

Well all you seem to have is your personal opinion whatever it may be. Of course the difference is I laid mine out and then backed it up with more than smilies.

FWIW, I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing because I knew you were going to post some opinions which agreed with yours. That's my point, all anyone has are opinions- no one knows what is going to happen for sure with the economy, QE, LTRO, Iran, or anything else, but you're acting as if your opinion is a fact because someone else shares it. Plenty of people disagree with you, but posting links of those opinions would be equally pointless. We don't have a crystal ball, we'll have to see what happens.

 

[shader]

I didn't doubt you could find a few opinions that support yours. I'm sure you can find more if you wanted as well. Doesn't mean any of them knows what is going to happen. Oh, and demand for gas in the US <> demand for global oil.

Well all you seem to have is your personal opinion whatever it may be. Of course the difference is I laid mine out and then backed it up with more than smilies.

FWIW, I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing because I knew you were going to post some opinions which agreed with yours. That's my point, all anyone has are opinions- no one knows what is going to happen for sure with the economy, QE, LTRO, Iran, or anything else, but you're acting as if your opinion is a fact because someone else shares it. Plenty of people disagree with you, but posting links of those opinions would be equally pointless. We don't have a crystal ball, we'll have to see what happens.

Exactly. Saying " the Iran situation is priced in" is an opinion.

 

[jamny]

What do oil companies pay for crude from OPEC?

 

[loose circuits]

I'm confused. On the one hand people in this thread have said that Oil doesn't follow the rules of supply and demand while others have said that the reason for the price hike has to do with Iran taking their supply off the market. Or that OPEC can control the price by removing supply. If we had more domestic production and more oil to market, wouldn't those things have less of an impact since they would be supplying less? Wouldn't opening up the Arctic Floor for drilling since Shell is ready to do it safely (having already spent 6 bil) be good for the country when you consider all the financial benefits?

 

[hook014]

good reading here.

The creation of the ICE and the the unwillingness of the senate to regulate it is the root of the problem. If you insist on ignoring the changes made in the last 11 yrs on how oil is traded you'll never have a real understanding of it. Sometimes ignorance is not really bliss.

 

[humpback]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

 

[hook014]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

Why don't you show me a link to the losers in oil run ups?

 

[jonessed]

Didn't I just see Hillary Clinton on the news talking about our new joint venture with Mexico to drill in the Gulf?

Me thinks the speculators are fleecing us again.

This is exactly what the Administration needs to do to reign in speculators, make them think that more product is coming into the market (even though it would be a decade before any plan led to actual oil); the fact it is Clinton allows Obama to preserve his environmental ties.

Demand is already down. Production is already up. This isn't about supply and demand at this point.

It's about expected supply and demand. It's about what's happening in Iran. It's about LTRO. It's about the possibility of QE3. Its about a myriad of other things as well.

Demand is expected to decline based on ongoing economic issues and increasing efficiency in autos. Iran is an excuse. The LTRO is expected to be more of the same no real change or disruption. Unless the economy tanks there will be no QE3 according to the Fed. And the myriad other things it's about is prices all out of whack with expected supply and demand.For those wondering about the acronyms. LTRO is the acronym for the long-term refinancing operation by the European Central Bank. And QE3 refers to a 3rd round of Quantitative Easing by the Fed.

No offense, but you're just giving your biased opinion here. You have no idea if demand is going to decline, what is going to happen in Iran, LTRO, QE3, or anything else. Clearly other people are betting that you're wrong. If you're right, then prices will fall back down.

LTRO:

RBS surveyed 160 bond investors and found on average the group expects next week’s take-up for the ECB’s money manna to be €574 billion. That would be an increase from the €489 billion hoovered up by banks in December. Expectations ranged from €201 billion to €1.437 trillion.

So more of the same according to people not me.Demand at least as it applies to the US:

U.S. motorists have bought less gasoline every week for the past 48 weeks, according to a survey published Wednesday by MasterCard SpendingPulse. At the same time, prices have risen. Those trends should continue, say industry analysts.

So demand continues down but prices continue up anyway. So much for supply and demand.

The Federal Reserve should only embark on a third round of large-scale bond purchases if the US economy deteriorates and inflation drops, and we are not there yet, a top Fed official said on

Friday. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard - who added that he would be willing to adopt a single Fed mandate - said now is a "natural time" for the central bank to pause and await more data given the economy and labor market are looking better.

This seems to be the prevailing thought on QE3As far as Iran goes if the embargo were take every bit of Iran's oil off the European market and no one took up the slack we would be looking at a 4-5 dollar rise in oil prices. Total. That's been more than factored in by now.

Oil is a global commodity, the futures price isn't going to drop because Americans have driven less over the past year. Especially considering the economy looks to be improving.

 

[humpback]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

Why don't you show me a link to the losers in oil run ups?

So that's a "no".

 

[hook014]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

Why don't you show me a link to the losers in oil run ups?

So that's a "no".

I provide links to corroborate my point. The only "no" seems to be on your side.

 

[hook014]

Technically, if I sell a futures contract today I am shorting because I think the price would not go any higher. So by that definition evry contract has a short side.

But my point as mentioned earlier is that if two or more parties are colluding to send the price higher no one is really in a true short position. And when you have the kind of scale that Goldman has to bring to bear on a market you can dictate where a commodity goes.

So that's the argument you should be addressing. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[humpback]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

Why don't you show me a link to the losers in oil run ups?

So that's a "no".

I provide links to corroborate my point. The only "no" seems to be on your side.

If your point is the speculators have an impact on the price of oil short term, I agree. If your point is that speculators only push the oil market higher and/or almost always make money, you are 100% wrong. I'd gladly discuss the former point, but not with someone who won't admit the latter. I can explain how the futures market works if you'd like, but you got defensive earlier when someone tried even though you clearly have it wrong.

 

[hook014]

I doubt any of us needed an elementary primer on the futures market.My argument still stands. If person A sells at 90 bbl to person B and person B turns around 2 days later and sells it to person A at 100 bbl and then person A sold to person c at 110 bbl, who loses? No one. Person B could have made more but they certainly didn't lose.

Clearly some people do need an elementary primer on the futures market. Every contract consists of one party who is long and another who is short. Every dollar gained by one party is lost by another.

Do you understand how this works yet?

Why don't you show me a link to the losers in oil run ups?

So that's a "no".

I provide links to corroborate my point. The only "no" seems to be on your side.

If your point is the speculators have an impact on the price of oil short term, I agree. If your point is that speculators only push the oil market higher and/or almost always make money, you are 100% wrong. I'd gladly discuss the former point, but not with someone who won't admit the latter. I can explain how the futures market works if you'd like, but you got defensive earlier when someone tried even though you clearly have it wrong.

No commodity can go up forever so of course there will be some loss when it goes soft. I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post as to the month over month gains being more than enough to absorb the loss when the price got corrected.You seem to be ignoring that part of my argument pretty routinely. Your offer to enlighten me is a dubious one considering the aforementioned cherry picking.

 

[humpback]

No commodity can go up forever so of course there will be some loss when it goes soft. I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post as to the month over month gains being more than enough to absorb the loss when the price got corrected.You seem to be ignoring that part of my argument pretty routinely. Your offer to enlighten me is a dubious one considering the aforementioned cherry picking.

You still aren't getting it. For every contract for oil, one party is a buyer (long) and the other party is a seller (short). Every single one, it has to be that way- a contract can not exist without a buyer and a seller agreeing to the terms. So, everytime the price of oil moves, one party makes money and the other party loses money. The sum of all the money made is exactly offset by the sum of all the money lost. It doesn't matter if the price goes up or down, the net result is always zero.

 

[humpback]

Technically, if I sell a futures contract today I am shorting because I think the price would not go any higher. So by that definition evry contract has a short side.But my point as mentioned earlier is that if two or more parties are colluding to send the price higher no one is really in a true short position. And when you have the kind of scale that Goldman has to bring to bear on a market you can dictate where a commodity goes.So that's the argument you should be addressing. I'll hang up and listen.

Collusion is a separate issue, but it doesn't work in the way you described at all. If two or more parties are colluding to send the price higher, someone absolutely is in a true short position (although it wouldn't be the party they are colluding with to send prices higher, they would also be buying, not selling). In fact, half of the parties (in terms of number of contracts) are ALWAYS in a true short position.

 

[Spiderman]

I don't blame the President for rising gas prices, but unfortunately for him, most people do and most people will. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Presidents are like QB's and often get too much praise and not enough blame when it should be the other way around and just as often get too much blame and not enough praise when it should be the other way around.

In the case of the economy, rampant persistent unemployment, and hordes of unpopular legislation, the short term memory of the American people has not held the President accountable enough for his actions. So he has gotten a pretty decent pass after 4 years of what is literally a debacle. Primarily because the American people, as a whole, are fairly stupid and unconcerned with anything outside of their tiny little worlds.

But in the case of gas prices, Bill O'Reilly is on the wrong side of this one. Oil companies should be allowed to do whatever is in their best interest to earn a profit. This isn't a Communist country and unlike Russia and Venezuela, we shouldn't be taking over the energy industry or adding export tarrifs to our own companies because gas is $3.50 a gallon instead of $2.50 a gallon. Especially moving their developed resources to the most profitable markets even if those markets are overseas. That being said, the US Government should not be subsidizing those endeavors and should start to erode big oil subsidies over time. They should open up drilling in the US in as many venues as possible, run the pipeline from Canada, authorize the construction of a larger refining capacity in the US (most refineries are still functioning with 40 year old technology), and begin constructing nuclear power plants at a staggering rate using the most advanced technology to take pressure off of the oil power plants in the country. At the same time, we assign a Congressional bipartisan panel that needs 60% approval to control subsidies to green energy developers instead of money being directly funneled by Presidential decree to help develop new technologies.

Unfortunately for the President, none of that matters. He isn't doing any of those things and is taking the "oh well" position on this. As Americans already feeling the pinch start to see the few remaining dollars in their pockets eroded by escalating gas prices, they will take it out on the party in power, and that party is the Democratic Party. People are not going to tolerate $5 gas and if you remember, the President panicked last year when this happened and opened up the strategic oil reserve draining American military stores in case of emergency for political purposes. Imagine what he'll try and do in an election year.

 

[guderian]

In 2008, THIS GUY and THIS GUYseemed to think the President had a huge impact on gas prices and that it deserved to be a campaign issue. Now? Not so much.

 

[Riversco]

Someone needs to explain to me why gas is 30 cents in banana republics and $5 here.

 

[Sam Quentin]

I'm confused. On the one hand people in this thread have said that Oil doesn't follow the rules of supply and demand while others those same people have said that the reason for the price hike has to do with Iran taking their supply off the market or that OPEC can control the price by removing supply

fyp

 

[Sam Quentin]

No commodity can go up forever so of course there will be some loss when it goes soft. I thought I was pretty clear in my previous post as to the month over month gains being more than enough to absorb the loss when the price got corrected.You seem to be ignoring that part of my argument pretty routinely. Your offer to enlighten me is a dubious one considering the aforementioned cherry picking.

You still aren't getting it. For every contract for oil, one party is a buyer (long) and the other party is a seller (short). Every single one, it has to be that way- a contract can not exist without a buyer and a seller agreeing to the terms. So, everytime the price of oil moves, one party makes money and the other party loses money. The sum of all the money made is exactly offset by the sum of all the money lost. It doesn't matter if the price goes up or down, the net result is always zero.

In the end, the last buyer is the consumer

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In 2008, THIS GUY and THIS GUYseemed to think the President had a huge impact on gas prices and that it deserved to be a campaign issue. Now? Not so much.

I didn't see in
anywhere where Obama asserts that the president is somehow in control of gas prices. He does assert that since the gas lines of the '70's that administration after administration had done next to nothing to pursue alternative energy and lessen our dependency on oil. He does comment on how rising fuel costs impacts the middle class and makes a bunch of promises. I say that it is a mixed bag on those promises. He has certainly pursued most of them (if not all) but has had lots of push back getting them implemented. The ads seem to be the same thing.

 

[SacramentoBob]

73% of Democrats thought Bush could've done something to lower gas prices.

33% of Democrats think Obama can do something to lower gas prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/21/gIQAk0IeSS_graphic.html

Nice 40% flip flop there.

 

[guderian]

73% of Democrats thought Bush could've done something to lower gas prices.

33% of Democrats think Obama can do something to lower gas prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/21/gIQAk0IeSS_graphic.html

Nice 40% flip flop there.

Only an 18% flip for Republicans and Republicans are called the racist, partisan hacks who flip flop on their arguments to fall in line with the party talking points.

 

[valhallan]

Meanwhile, the opinions of Democrats and Republicans will have little bearing on the outcome the election.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

73% of Democrats thought Bush could've done something to lower gas prices.

33% of Democrats think Obama can do something to lower gas prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/21/gIQAk0IeSS_graphic.html

Nice 40% flip flop there.

Only an 18% flip for Republicans and Republicans are called the racist, partisan hacks who flip flop on their arguments to fall in line with the party talking points.

If we were still full fledged into 2 different wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it was in '06... then I would say "yes" Obama could do something to lower gas prices.

 

[pittstownkiller]

73% of Democrats thought Bush could've done something to lower gas prices.

33% of Democrats think Obama can do something to lower gas prices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/03/21/gIQAk0IeSS_graphic.html

Nice 40% flip flop there.

Only an 18% flip for Republicans and Republicans are called the racist, partisan hacks who flip flop on their arguments to fall in line with the party talking points.

If we were still full fledged into 2 different wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as it was in '06... then I would say "yes" Obama could do something to lower gas prices.

So the wars gave us greater latitude with regards to gas prices; I must admit that is an analysis that I haven't heard before.

 

[MTskibum]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

 

[FavreCo]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

 

[encaitar]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea...ld/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

5 years ago, the Bakken zone in ND was estimated to have 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The latest estimate I saw come through the office has it now at 18 billion barrels with today's technology. As technology continues to improve, that number will only go higher. (Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 billion barrels of as of yet non-recoverable oil in the Bakken zone) There are quite a few shale zones in the US with the same situation. However, we are drilling. We are drilling now more than ever. I don't think anything the President does or does not do affects the price of oil at all.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Meanwhile, the opinions of Democrats and Republicans will have little bearing on the outcome the election.

General elections are usually won by energizing the base to get out and actually vote. Independents are not usually the factor that conventional wisdon suggests.

 

[MTskibum]

Record demand is driving the increase in gasoline prices.

http://omrpublic.iea...ld/wb_wodem.pdf

And drilling some measly US wells isn't going to put a dent in that either. I love when they say they found a HUGE deposit of x billion barrels. For instance, the largest one found in the western hemisphere in the last 30 years, Tupi oil field, 5+ billion recoverable barrels. We would drain that in under 1 year if we could pump out our daily usage.

5 years ago, the Bakken zone in ND was estimated to have 3.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The latest estimate I saw come through the office has it now at 18 billion barrels with today's technology. As technology continues to improve, that number will only go higher. (Somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 billion barrels of as of yet non-recoverable oil in the Bakken zone) There are quite a few shale zones in the US with the same situation. However, we are drilling. We are drilling now more than ever. I don't think anything the President does or does not do affects the price of oil at all.

Are you working in North Dakota too?

 

[bueno]

Obama took to the stump today to lash out at his critics and claimed that they are celebrating the rising gas prices. He pointed out that oil production since he became President has nearly quadrupled under his watch, and it lowered under Bush. He went on to say that we can't lower prices by increased drilling, and anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth. "There is no silver bullet," he says. Is he right?

There is a silver bullet - convert to natural gas.Is he talking about US oil production? I'd have to check the numbers but that sounds bogus! And he's right to say that increased drilling won't lower prices. But then he doesn't say whether that drilling results in increased production, does he?Bottom line? Demand for oil is rising, therefore prices are rising. The argument is that increased production will slow the increase in prices by increasing supply. Kind of a second derivative argument, but it is what it is.Meantime, we have an energy czar that wants higher prices so force America off gasoline when the answer is already there in natural gas.Translation: the administration is pretty clueless, IMHO.