Aardvark

Just to look at this from another angle, I'm not sure it would be a bad thing if it did draw out the Great Depression somewhat. Hypothetically, it might mean you come out of it a year later but with a stronger labor force -- more educated and stable and ready to go, as opposed to smaller, less educated, more mobile, and more desperate.

 

Just an idle thought.

It's a good thing that is just an idle thought because it makes no sense whatsoever. Having a longer slump won't make a workforce 'stronger', 'more educated' or 'stable'. It just means people are poorer for longer.

Since the depression lasted longer and was deeper in the USA than any other developed nation, and nations such as Britain, which had no New Deal type policies at all recovered much faster and had a much shallower depression it is hard to see an empirical evidence that FDRs policies alleviated the depression in the USA, rather the appearance is given of a significant hit to the economy from the New Deal.

Huge regulatory uncertainity leading to massive cutting back of business investment led to the Capital famine that caused the 1937 slump right back into depression in the USA. The rest of the world just carried on recovering.

Well, I'm about done arguing with Aardvark as he only seems to want to deal in strawmen and not arguments of substance. And I'm not sure how to argue about the U.S. oil futures market with someone who thinks it doesn't exist...

It's a shame that you apparently don't even understand your own argument, let alone anyone elses.

Aardvark insists that speculators can only manipulate the markets through a CONSPIRACY!!! I insist this isn't the case:.

Wrong.

You are the one who uses a quote from Greenberger calling for regulation because of a conspiracy. I have pointed out that no such conspiracy does or can exist.

Your conspiracy theory is insane.

But even after trying to make myself clear, this isn't a conspiracy, it's a collective effect, Aardvark once again goes for CONSPIRACY, strawmanning me in the process.

Wrong again, it's odd how you don't appear to even read your own posts.

You claim that all the oil traders are collectively working together to deliberately withhold oil supplies to drive up the price.

That is a good definition of a conspiracy. And also practically and financially impossible.

First, I said nothing about supplies. And here's someone who agrees with me that the collective effect of speculation is driving up the price of oil in the U.S.:

You did refer to oil supplies, that's is what this entire thread is about:rolleyes:

And it's easy enough to find random quotes from people, that doesn't count as proof or data. Each of us could post hundreds of quotes from people who think that regulating speculation in the USA will reduce prices or who think that is a stupid and ineffective idea. It doesn't prove a thing.

I note that you haven't bothered to try and counter my points that it is impossible for American to regulate the oil trading markets, that the only way for America to affect the oil price is to consume less or produce more or that it is physically impossible for all the oil traders on the planet to collectively act (conspire) to deliberately withhold oil supplies to boost prices.

Still, never mind, it's pretty clear that you have no understanding at all of the way markets work.

Then why did it take so many decades to arrive at (or near) $150/barrel? They could have "paid themselves" more than the market rate all along.

The only amount that makes sense for a company to pay itself is the exact market rate. If they pay themselves more, then all they are doing is taking money out of one of their pockets and putting it into another pocket. It doesn't make them any extra profit, why would they want to do that?

There's nothing about drilling offshore that precludes the creation of "hundreds of thousands" of jobs based on alternative energy sources.

No, but if you listen to the arguments of 'environmentalists' that is exactly the argument they use. That drilling for oil or building a nuclear power station or anything else they don't like will 'divert' attention or resources away devloping things that the 'environmentalists' want.

It's a false and dishonest argument, but one very widely used and repeated.

It gets back to me looking with a longer term view. Oil's gonna run out, and so will people's demand of it. Not renewables. It will open up entire new sectors in manufacturing, engineering, sales, support, service, design, and many others.

 

Oil doesn't share the cross-context potential nor long-term staying power that renewables will have.

 

It's fine if you disagree, but I do believe my stance is based on the most accurate and most abundant data.

 

Sure there's money in oil, but it's not even a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the other approaches this planet is taking collectively for future energy needs.

You might think that in the long run renewables are the best, fine.

However, if your looking for an economic boost and thousands of highly paid jobs in an area, then drilling for oil will get that. Telling voters not to bother because those jobs don't have ' the cross-context potential nor long-term staying power that renewables will have.' just isn't going to make any sense.

Bottom line: Aardvark seems to be insisting that unregulated overseas trading of U.S. oil commodities has no effect on the price internationally (and as far as I can tell, domestically) and that requiring all U.S commodities be traded on U.S. regulated exchanges would have no effect on the price of oil.

No. That's not what i have stated at all.

I'll recap for you.

Oil is traded internationally. Therefore it is not possible to 'require' that oil be traded on 'U.S. regulated exchanges'. America IMPORTS the bulk of her oil, remember?

Therefore, increasing regulation of the New York markets isn't going to effect oil prices.

I disagree, and have cited sources which claim the contrary.

 

For starters, Aardvark, do you think that requiring trades of U.S. oil commodities occur on regulated exchanges would have an effect on the domestic price of oil in the U.S.?

Hahaha! I think that 'requiring' that would be hilarious. :D:D

America IMPORTS oil. That means the oil comes from places that the US can NOT regulate. America has to pay the prices set on international markets. US regulations do not come into it and trying to impose US regulations on other countries would be very funny and very pointless.

Ad hominem. You haven't said why Greenberger's argument is wrong, you're simply saying it's wrong because he lacks a "firm grasp on reality".

 

That's pretty much bottom of the barrel fallacious reasoning.

Actually, i've just pointed out how his argument is wrong because it is not physically possible. It would require every oil trader across the globe to simultaneously engage in coordinated oil hoarding. It would require every oil trader to ignore their own financial interests and it would require every oil trader to keep the whole conspiracy secret.

But if you think that just because something is impossible doesn't mean that it's been discredited then fine, you go in thinking that:-p

The thing I've never been able to figure out is what happens in the case of completely vertical companies, which drill, ship, refine and market. It would be rather odd for them to pay themselves market price for oil they drilled themselves. There's a lot about the manufacturing chain for big oil that I don't understand.

Why wouldn't they charge themselves the full market price all along the chain? It makes financial sense. If a process along the chain needs cheaper oil than the market price then you can get more profit from selling the oil to someone else rather than performing that part of the manufacturing chain. There's absolutely no point in cross subsidising any part of your company.

I'd like to see some numbers that accurately support your comments in the context of our future economy. I see where the money is flowing right now, and I can tell you it's not oil.

You seriously think that money isn't flowing to oil?

The price of oil is sky high. Anywhere that pumps oil is going to have a big boost to the economy. Oil rigs need a lot of skilled, highly paid workers. The associated industries employ a lot of highly skilled, highly paid workers.

Oil means money. It means lots of highly paid jobs.

America can also affect the price of oil by paying more or paying less, the point you seem to be missing.

America pays whatever the price is. As the price has risen, America has just kept on buying the oil at the higher prices. If America was to reduce consumption due to the higher prices that would have an effect. As i've REPEATEDLY pointed out. Lower consumption or higher production would reduce the price.

As it is, American demand for oil is inelastic, so there simply isn't an option of 'paying more, or paying less'

You know, it'd really help if you'd actually cite some sources to back up your points. So far you haven't done that whatsoever, and instead just slander my sources without actually rebutting them.

So sorry that logic and reason aren't good enough for you.

As for your 'sources'. Having a quotation from Greenberger stating that there is a conspiracy to drive up the price of oil just shows that you are basing your argument on someone without a firm grasp on reality. Here's a rebuttal for you, it would be physically impossible and make no financial sense at all for oil traders to engage in such a conspiracy.

Changes in American policy resulted in a drop in the price of oil? SAY IT AIN'T SO.

Of COURSE!!!!!!

As i've repeatedly pointed out, the only way America can affect the price of oil is by producing more or consuming less. The President changes policy so as to produce more and the price falls.........Proving my point.

(You really don't seem to be able to grasp this whole Supply and Demand thing at all)

Not as many jobs as the new manufacturing of renewables would.

Actually, the oil jobs would be better. They are the result of real creation of wealth. Lots of extra, highly skilled jobs are created by off shore oil drilling.

Renewable energy jobs tend to need large subsidies. they might be good from an environmental perspective, but from an economic perspective, oil is still best.

That's a terrible strawman. Can you please go back and reread my posts while employing a higher degree of reading comprehension, rather than making up fantasy viewpoints in your head then attributing them to me? Thanks.

Do you even bother to read your own quotes? Here you are again, your quote from Greenberger. You seem to be displaying a complete lack of intelligent comprehension of your own posts, let alone anyone elses.

''speculators who are using what are called dark markets, markets that can't be watched by the public or regulators, to manipulate the price of crude oil and, therefore, gasoline and heating oil in an upward direction.''

That's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy. And completely bonkers as well.

What if the remaining 3/4 of the world will pay $150 a barrel, and Americans pay $200? Wouldn't America drive the price of oil up?

 

Now, what if the rest of the world begrudgingly plays a price America has inflated, and the price America is willing to pay goes down.

Oil is a fungible commodity. Go get a dictionary and look it up, you might learn something.

You seem to have a hard time understanding this supply and demand stuff. The global price of oil and what America is willing to pay are highly interdependent. You seem to be treating them as two separate entities.

Your ignorance and lack of any sort of understanding of basic economics and the functioning of the markets is quite remarkable.

Just to repeat (maybe you'll get it this time).

1) Oil is a fungible commodity.

2) The price of oil is set globally.

Therefore trying to regulate oil market trading in the USA will have no impact on the price of oil. If you wanted to you could have all the evil speculators in New York taken out and shot. It wouldn't cut the price of oil. It wouldn't stop oil trading. It would however be another blow to the financial services industry in the USA, London and Dubai and Singapore and Shanghai and Bern would be most grateful.

There is oil off other States than just California.

If a recession does start to bite then you might see more people start to look more favourably on the idea of drilling in their States waters. It brings a lot of good jobs with it.

Always good to find some common ground in one of these discussions.

When did I single out offshore drilling? The whole thrust of my comment on a myopic risk assessment is the knowledge that any burning of carbon based fuel will have a deleterious effect globally, regardless of source.

 

You could drill for oil wherever it is... You still have to burn it, and that burning should be calculated as part of the risk.

This is a thread specifically about off shore drilling of oil. If you want to broaden the discussion into the rights and wrongs of burning oil at all then fine, but i think we'll need a different thread.

Are you suggesting, then, that market traders would have no interest in driving up costs, and that a limit on supply is not an effective way to do that?

At anyone time, half of all oil traders would like to see oil prices rise and half would like to see them fall. Whichever way the traders would like to see the oil price go, they don't have the option of limiting supply. OPEC could conceiveably do that, but not uncountable numbers of traders dispersed all over the world.

Well, no. I was suggesting it's myopic to limit our definition of "risk" to spills. I wasn't questioning your knowledge, I was questioning the parameters of your risk assessment.

In which case the 'risk' from off shore oil is exactly the same as the 'risk' from oil pumped on land and oil shipped in from abroad, making any particular singling out of off shore oil for attention irrational.

iNow. You do understand that OPEC and market traders (speculators) are completely different groups don't you?

OPEC attempting to limit oil supplies has absolutely nothing whatsoever with oil traders or any putative 'Enron loophole'.

Besides asking how it got to shore, can you please explain where you think my lack of understanding exists? Perhaps an example or two to support your assertion?

You demonstrated lack of understanding when you suggested that i showed 'myopia' in expressing an opinion on a subject that you, in fact, were ignorant of whereas i infact do have relevant knowledge.

Well, isn't that an interesting example of spin-doctoring the news. I don't know which of you to believe, and both could be technically correct thanks to careful phrasing and avoidanace of issues.

 

How utterly useless and uninformative.

Just do a Google search for 'Thorp Sellafield'.

It's a major investment with orders already signed years in advance for waste reprocessing. It has had to temporarily close more than once, but it is not planned for permanent closure, it is a major part of BNFLs business plan and supported as such by the British government.

Wups, I misread them, let me edit:

 

So Britain, France and Japan are unable to recycle nuclear waste? Is that the IPCC-like, debate-is-over concensus?

Actually, the Sellafield fuel reprocessing plant is not closing. Recycling nuclear waste is a major priority for both BNFL and the British government.

I'm not sure I understand where exactly you guys disagree.

Bascule appears to believe that oil traders are working in collusion to deliberately withhold supplies of oil and drive prices up.

I have pointed out why i consider that to be such a nonsensical idea as to be almost insane.

Well, that belies the fact that America is driving up the "globally set oil price"... when 1 out of every 4 barrels of oil goes to America, the amount that Americans are willing to pay has a substantial effect on the price.

No, it has been clearly demonstrated that Americans will pay whatever the going price is. If the price set is $50 a barrel the Americans pay, if the price is $100 a barrel the Americans still pay it. When the price is heading toward $150 a barrel the Americans STILL pay it!

The ONLY way the Americans are going to effect the price of oil is by buying less of it. That can be achieved by producing more or consuming less.

How is it a conspiracy any more than rampant, unregulated speculation?

Rampant (how virile that sounds!), unregulated speculation is where lots of traders buy and sell oil, attempting to anticipate price changes.

Greenberger states that the traders are deliberately colluding to manipulate the price of oil.

The first is a market place, the second is a conspiracy. They are totally and completely different. Greenbergers conspiracy fantasy would require the coordinated action of the vast majority of all oil traders on this planet to withhold oil supplies to force up prices, with none of the oil traders breaking ranks to benefit from the higher prices and no one finding out about the mammoth organisation needed to run the conspiracy.

Really, if you can't tell the difference between a free market of oil traders and a pan global cabal deliberately hoarding oil to force up prices then i'm worried for you.

What about getting it from "off shore" to "shore?"

The oil is pumped in pipes from the oil rigs to oil refineries on land. No need to load up tankers with all the resultant risks. Much cleaner and safer that way.

Also, what happens when you burn it after it's arrived on shore?

Then it turns into magical fairy dust of course

I encourage everyone to avoid such myopia when reviewing risks of this approach.

You are the one who is demonstrating a lack of understanding here.

It means either it's been closed and removed, or they're not using a proxy at all, and a quick report to the police/ISP should be easily resolved...

So maybe you're about to make yourself an easy $1000?

Jellyfish certainly seem to be doing well

That's probably because all of the fish that normally prey on them have been subject to overfishing.

Thus demonstrating the impact of speculation on the price of oil.

Of course.

Future production is a fact that is part of the pricing of any commodity in a properly functioning market.