*Cost Of Everythings Going Up: Thanks Fucking Obama!*

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

for forth time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

You are responding to ED. ED!!!! Between the two of you, you may have a combined IQ of what??? Maybe 100???? Dipshit.

I'm was making a comment TO Ed ABOUT Pogo and his inability to reply to his question, as well as how emotional he seems to get. Apparently you are a bit confused by this. You may want to consider reading the post again, and see if you can actually follow the discussion. Thanks.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

for forth time:
dear, can you say why the Constitution gives us guns or must you admit you lack the IQ to do so??

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

Keep it then. You only look stupider by the day and your credibility, if any ever existed, is shot. As long as you do, anything you post is worthless.

Good to know who doesn't care whether something is factual or not and just makes it up as he goes along.

Hate to break it to you, but "stupider" is not a word.

Good to know who doesn't care ..,, what? You might want to consider really looking into your grammar, before you make an attempt to call someone ELSE unintelligent.... just another observation.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

Keep it then. You only look stupider by the day and your credibility, if any ever existed, is shot. As long as you do, anything you post is worthless.

Good to know who doesn't care whether something is factual or not and just makes it up as he goes along.

Hate to break it to you, but "stupider" is not a word.

Good to know who doesn't care ..,, what? You might want to consider really looking into your grammar, before you make an attempt to call someone ELSE unintelligent.... just another observation.

It is when I write it. Strange comment for a guy who feels free to make shit up that people never said, and suddenly wants to turn around and claim language is fixed in stone.
Yeah I know, this is all over your head.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
Unlike your fabricated sig, somebody actually did write that. Not that a dishonest hack would care...

 

[Pogo]

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.
Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.
During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???
1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.
2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

uuhhh.... attributing somebody's hackneyed demagoguery to "dems" and therefore "everybody over there", and therefore "you" (whoever 'you' means) -- even though it came from one person -- is what's "stupid".

The rest of the analysis is sound, but just so we're clear, Sparky, if you're taking an inane quip from Nancy Pelosi 2008 and attributing it to 50% of the population, you may not even be qualified to post.

I wouldn't waste time trying to make sense out of AT's posts up there. I gave up. Basically I said "the sky is blue" and she insists, "no it isn't, the sky is blue!". Doesn't make sense.

And by the way, lest we forget, Mitt Romney pulled the same crap out of his ass in the last election. It's what politicians do. They're playing to the ignorant, not to us. And if you'll notice, that's "Mitt Romney" -- not "Republicans", not "everybody over there"; Mitt Romney, period.

Aside from that, we all agree, a POTUS doesn't control gas prices. That's the OP's idea, nobody else's. And I'm sure by now he's more lost than he was when he started this idiot thread.

So, Pogo says:


I said no such thing. I simply made the statement that when Dems blamed W, the con outlets all said that it was not possible for a president to create gas price increases. While now, we have cons saying that the price of gas is Obama's fault. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Yeah, actually you did. Wanna see it again? I'll boldface it here:

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.
Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.

See the second personal pronoun "you"? Now since there are only two posters in the previous quotes, myself and AmazonTania, "you" must refer to one of us. Which doesn't work either way since she and I were saying the same thing, which is the same thing that you're saying. But in any case not one of us is Nancy Pelosi or Mitt Romney or the OP, so not one of us made the claim that a president can wave his magic wand and lower oil prices. The only clown who made that point is the OP, who is too dim to take part in any of this.

I wouldn't waste time trying to make sense out of AT's posts up there. I gave up.

And by the way, lest we forget, Mitt Romney pulled the same crap out of his ass in the last election. It's what politicians do. They're playing to the ignorant, not to us.

Look at the article that I posted. It completely covers these points. So, did you think that we disagree. Interestingly, as the article I referenced points out, though Romney blamed Obama, his economic adviser is on record as saying no president can affect gasoline prices.

This is getting surreal. I did not say we "disagree". Nobody among the three of us disagrees AFAIK. What I took exception to was your fallacy of hasty generalization. At this point I don't even know who it was directed to but it's a fatal fallacy either way.

I don't need the article you posted. I knew all this stuff before I came to this board so save your breath. As far as who controls gas prices and who doesn't, we're on the same page.

Aside from that, we all agree, a POTUS doesn't control gas prices. That's the OP's idea, nobody else's.

If you look at AT's post (who is the person to whom I was responding) you will note that not everyone agrees that the POTUS does not affect gas prices. The rational agree that he does not, the politically motivated often do not.

Who the hell knows what she was saying. I find AT's posts obtusely muddled. Whatever she has a "license" in is obviously not communication. I think she frames concurrence as dispute just to argue. What that's about, I don't know and I don't care.

 

[AmazonTania]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.

That's nice.

Now, the cons are blaming Obama. Funny how that works. Never provide any credit when the prices decrease. Just blame him for increases. Which proves that you are STUPID.
During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???

1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.

This point is irrelevant because you have just admitted to yourself that oil production has increased. This would mean that the price IS reacting to supply and demand. Couldn't wait until I was done with my response to make yourself sound moronic?

2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

Only 8 cents of distributing and marketing are actually contributed towards gas prices, so that is far from wrong. To assume that any oil company can control the price directly is to assume that any distributor can set any price at will and the market will purchase this item regardless of the price. This is sheer economic ignorance.

Oil prices are strictly set based on supply and demand, just like any commodity on this Earth. Like any commodity, as I have said earlier, it is subject to volatility. Which means the price of a commodity can be influenced by just about anyone, or anything. Future's Traders, Commodities Speculators, Taxes, Mother Nature, and Government policy. This is not limited to the Congress, Federal Reserve or President of the United States. In most cases, it requires the help of all three.

All of these things can effect supply and demand. It doesn't change the fact that no sole arbiter can determine what the price of gas will be, but individuals (including the President) can effect prices to a certain extent.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

Those aren't facts. That's just the opinion of one man. But I suppose I am wrong and you are right simply because you have 'a source.' But what if I have a source too?

Four major factors help determine the price of oil: supply, consumption, financial markets and government policies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government regulation also has a big effect on oil prices. Recently passed rules on sulfur content could raise the demand for sweet crude oil -- a type of crude oil with less sulfur -- but sweet crude oil is less common than other types of oil. And laws aimed at preventing climate change will likely raise the price of energy, too. Taxes on gasoline can also affect prices.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/crude-oil-market1.htm

So I guess we are both wrong now. Well, you would be considered more incorrect, as you don't really have the economically fortitude to understand these things. But keep trying, as I know you will ultimately embarrass yourself.

 

[Mr Natural]

The cost of most everything goes up over time.

It's called inflation and is a normal part of economics.

 

[AmazonTania]

OPEC influences the price of the entire international market. That's the whole purpose of a cartel. You do more than "digress"...

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'

Beyond that, well you're lost in space even when we're on the same page. I'm sorry you have these reading deficiencies but since you obviously don't have a clue what's been posted here, there's no point going on trying to make an argument out of an agreement. Good night.

How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

By the way, you seem to make a really big deal of having a Series 3 license. Having said license simply proves you passed a single exam, by getting 70% of the 120 questions on the Series 3 test, correct. Jesus.

Maybe you should actually research what a Series 3 license is.

 

[AmazonTania]

The cost of most everything goes up over time.

It's called inflation and is a normal part of economics.

According to certain people (those aligned in the Krugman camp) there is very low inflation. So what you are saying does not apply.

Unless you are saying there is plenty of inflation, in which case the President doesn't have much control over gas prices.

Which is it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The cost of most everything goes up over time.

It's called inflation and is a normal part of economics.

cost can go up or down depending on how much money the Fed prints. The more they print the higher the cost, the less they print the lower the cost.

This would be covered in HS economics.

 

[Rshermr]

Pogo loves to change topics when it suits. If he approached me in the manner of a mature adult over his concerns, I'm sure things would be different. However I may just decide to keep this quote if only for the sheer fact I have enjoyed seeing how over-the-top emotional he gets over it. It's been rather entertaining, but I wouldn't waste my time expecting a reply to your question.

You are responding to ED. ED!!!! Between the two of you, you may have a combined IQ of what??? Maybe 100???? Dipshit.

I'm was making a comment TO Ed ABOUT Pogo and his inability to reply to his question, as well as how emotional he seems to get. Apparently you are a bit confused by this. You may want to consider reading the post again, and see if you can actually follow the discussion. Thanks.

No, me boy. No confusion at all. I understand what you were saying. And it was STUPID.

 

[Pogo]

You are responding to ED. ED!!!! Between the two of you, you may have a combined IQ of what??? Maybe 100???? Dipshit.

I'm was making a comment TO Ed ABOUT Pogo and his inability to reply to his question, as well as how emotional he seems to get. Apparently you are a bit confused by this. You may want to consider reading the post again, and see if you can actually follow the discussion. Thanks.

No, me boy. No confusion at all. I understand what you were saying. And it was STUPID.

He's right, it was stoopid. First of all, Ed doesn't have a question. Ed IS a question.

 

[Rshermr]

So Tanya, the economic expert (in her own mind) says:

This point is irrelevant because you have just admitted to yourself that oil production has increased. This would mean that the price IS reacting to supply and demand. Couldn't wait until I was done with my response to make yourself sound moronic?

Admitted to myself? I have been aware for a long time of that little fact. Now, obviously, you know SOMETHING about economics. If supply increases, we should see prices lowering. Problem is, prices have been increasing during this period. Yes, they did decrease some, but they increased over a long period of time. Did you happen to notice? You see, my economically ignorant tool, I said supply was increasing (not that I admitted it was) and that demand has been decreasing, during periods of increasing gas prices. So, how is that market system working for you. Idiot.


Quote:
2. THE OIL COMPANIES own the distribution channels. They are able to CONTROL PRICE directly.

So, get a clue. The problem is not this president. It is not the last president. It is NOT ANY PRESIDENT. It is, OBVIOUSLY, the oil companies. Because they are OLIGOPOLIES, and they have near complete control of gas prices.

Only 8 cents of distributing and marketing are actually contributed towards gas prices, so that is far from wrong. To assume that any oil company can control the price directly is to assume that any distributor can set any price at will and the market will purchase this item regardless of the price. This is sheer economic ignorance.

Ignorance, yes. On your part. I have worked with the oil folks. They think people like you are the cattle for their price games. They ratchet the price up, you complain louder and louder, until they bring the price back down a bit. Then you stop yelling. And you pay the price they want. Take a class in economics and pay special attention to monopoly power. Then you may have a clue. Exxon, or BP, or Phillips, or Shell are not local distributors. Jesus, that was a stupid comparison. They are multinational corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees. You really need to get a grip.

Oil prices are strictly set based on supply and demand, just like any commodity on this Earth. Like any commodity, as I have said earlier, it is subject to volatility. Which means the price of a commodity can be influenced by just about anyone, or anything. Future's Traders, Commodities Speculators, Taxes, Mother Nature, and Government policy. This is not limited to the Congress, Federal Reserve or President of the United States. In most cases, it requires the help of all three.

All of these things can effect supply and demand. It doesn't change the fact that no sole arbiter can determine what the price of gas will be, but individuals (including the President) can effect prices to a certain extent.

Well, Tanya, I guess you should write your own economics book. Any that you will find out there today will tell you that the oil industry is an oligopolistic marketplace. The major oil companies have extreme monopolistic power. You do not seem to understand that, or perhaps you do not want to. But, if Exxon wants to raise prices, all it needs do is raise prices, and the others always follow. Always. Because they know they can. Until the price reaches a point that causes too much trouble for them, in a number of areas. Then the price ratchets down a bit. In unison.

Quote:
"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/bu...trol.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

Those aren't facts. That's just the opinion of one man. But I suppose I am wrong and you are right simply because you have 'a source.' But what if I have a source too?

Hardly. If you read the article, you would see it is the opinion of a team of well respected Economists. See the difference? One man, versus a team of well respected economists. It is not hard, if you try. I try not to use unqualified sources. I leave that to you.

Quote:
Four major factors help determine the price of oil: supply, consumption, financial markets and government policies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government regulation also has a big effect on oil prices. Recently passed rules on sulfur content could raise the demand for sweet crude oil -- a type of crude oil with less sulfur -- but sweet crude oil is less common than other types of oil. And laws aimed at preventing climate change will likely raise the price of energy, too. Taxes on gasoline can also affect prices.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...il-market1.htm

So I guess we are both wrong now. Well, you would be considered more incorrect, as you don't really have the economically fortitude to understand these things. But keep trying, as I know you will ultimately embarrass yourself.

You should be embarrassed. How stuff works?? Real economic experts in the area of gas prices. Dipshit.

 

[Rshermr]

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'



How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

By the way, you seem to make a really big deal of having a Series 3 license. Having said license simply proves you passed a single exam, by getting 70% of the 120 questions on the Series 3 test, correct. Jesus.

Maybe you should actually research what a Series 3 license is.

It is a really simple thing. Not much to research. 120 question multiple choice test, you need to score 70%. Damn, now that is rigorous. Should give you a right to call yourself an expert. Good for you. I will pass and look to the experts for expertise.

 

[Rshermr]

I'm was making a comment TO Ed ABOUT Pogo and his inability to reply to his question, as well as how emotional he seems to get. Apparently you are a bit confused by this. You may want to consider reading the post again, and see if you can actually follow the discussion. Thanks.

No, me boy. No confusion at all. I understand what you were saying. And it was STUPID.

He's right, it was stoopid. First of all, Ed doesn't have a question. Ed IS a question.

Yup. A question without a rational answer.

 

[Rshermr]

Um, no. Not quite, anyway... OPEC only has a 40% weigh in the international market. The rest of the 60% are non-OPEC nations. In order for OPEC to influence prices, they would have to adjust their supply and production according to every oil-producing nation on earth. Even then, the prices would only effect nations which are not major oil-exporters. OPEC only influence is one countries which are heavy oil importers and countries which hold USD in their reverses. Despite all of this, Oil Prices are actually set by the Oil Futures Market. I know how this works all too well, as I have a Series 3 license.

Despite OPEC's power, it cannot completely control oil prices. You are very confused, which probably leads you to believe that OPEC is the externality. It generally helps if you take the time to understand these things more. Not just base your analysis on 'even if's.'



How you confused yourself into believing someone was actually agreeing with you is beyond me. I can only assume this doesn't happen to you very often.

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.

That's nice.



This point is irrelevant because you have just admitted to yourself that oil production has increased. This would mean that the price IS reacting to supply and demand. Couldn't wait until I was done with my response to make yourself sound moronic?



Only 8 cents of distributing and marketing are actually contributed towards gas prices, so that is far from wrong. To assume that any oil company can control the price directly is to assume that any distributor can set any price at will and the market will purchase this item regardless of the price. This is sheer economic ignorance.

Oil prices are strictly set based on supply and demand, just like any commodity on this Earth. Like any commodity, as I have said earlier, it is subject to volatility. Which means the price of a commodity can be influenced by just about anyone, or anything. Future's Traders, Commodities Speculators, Taxes, Mother Nature, and Government policy. This is not limited to the Congress, Federal Reserve or President of the United States. In most cases, it requires the help of all three.

All of these things can effect supply and demand. It doesn't change the fact that no sole arbiter can determine what the price of gas will be, but individuals (including the President) can effect prices to a certain extent.

"Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html?_r=0
Read this short article by an economist who specializes in the subject, and then ask yourself why you are blaming this president for this issue. JESUS.

Those aren't facts. That's just the opinion of one man. But I suppose I am wrong and you are right simply because you have 'a source.' But what if I have a source too?

Four major factors help determine the price of oil: supply, consumption, financial markets and government policies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government regulation also has a big effect on oil prices. Recently passed rules on sulfur content could raise the demand for sweet crude oil -- a type of crude oil with less sulfur -- but sweet crude oil is less common than other types of oil. And laws aimed at preventing climate change will likely raise the price of energy, too. Taxes on gasoline can also affect prices.

HowStuffWorks "Crude Oil Pricing"

So I guess we are both wrong now. No, only you are wrong.lWell, you would be considered more incorrect, as you don't really have the economically fortitude to understand these things. But keep trying, as I know you will ultimately embarrass yourself.

By the way. That last sentence. 'You don't really have the economically fortitude....." And you being the one who loves to tout your ability at composition. You may want to look that one up in you dictionary. Left me wondering.

 

[Pogo]

Jesus. You need to get a grip. During the last presidency, dems blamed W for price increases. And Fox and the many other con outlets all stated that no president has any ability to affect oil, and therefor gas, prices in the near term. NONE. And that concept was absolutely backed up by every non partial source.

That's nice.



This point is irrelevant because you have just admitted to yourself that oil production has increased. This would mean that the price IS reacting to supply and demand. Couldn't wait until I was done with my response to make yourself sound moronic?



Only 8 cents of distributing and marketing are actually contributed towards gas prices, so that is far from wrong. To assume that any oil company can control the price directly is to assume that any distributor can set any price at will and the market will purchase this item regardless of the price. This is sheer economic ignorance.

Oil prices are strictly set based on supply and demand, just like any commodity on this Earth. Like any commodity, as I have said earlier, it is subject to volatility. Which means the price of a commodity can be influenced by just about anyone, or anything. Future's Traders, Commodities Speculators, Taxes, Mother Nature, and Government policy. This is not limited to the Congress, Federal Reserve or President of the United States. In most cases, it requires the help of all three.

All of these things can effect supply and demand. It doesn't change the fact that no sole arbiter can determine what the price of gas will be, but individuals (including the President) can effect prices to a certain extent.



Those aren't facts. That's just the opinion of one man. But I suppose I am wrong and you are right simply because you have 'a source.' But what if I have a source too?

Four major factors help determine the price of oil: supply, consumption, financial markets and government policies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government regulation also has a big effect on oil prices. Recently passed rules on sulfur content could raise the demand for sweet crude oil -- a type of crude oil with less sulfur -- but sweet crude oil is less common than other types of oil. And laws aimed at preventing climate change will likely raise the price of energy, too. Taxes on gasoline can also affect prices.

HowStuffWorks "Crude Oil Pricing"

So I guess we are both wrong now. No, only you are wrong.lWell, you would be considered more incorrect, as you don't really have the economically fortitude to understand these things. But keep trying, as I know you will ultimately embarrass yourself.

By the way. That last sentence. 'You don't really have the economically fortitude....." And you being the one who loves to tout your ability at composition. You may want to look that one up in you dictionary. Left me wondering.

We've previously established that she's not a citizen, and I think English is not her first language either.

Actually she might be an alien. That would explain a lot.

 

[AmazonTania]

Admitted to myself? I have been aware for a long time of that little fact. Now, obviously, you know SOMETHING about economics. If supply increases, we should see prices lowering. Problem is, prices have been increasing during this period. Yes, they did decrease some, but they increased over a long period of time. Did you happen to notice? You see, my economically ignorant tool, I said supply was increasing (not that I admitted it was) and that demand has been decreasing, during periods of increasing gas prices. So, how is that market system working for you. Idiot.

You're too dumb to understand that you contradicted yourself. You said this:

During this administration, OIL SUPPLY HAS INCREASED. During this administration, OIL DEMAND HAS DECREASED. Now, assuming you are not brain dead, you know that means that in your "market economy" in your simple little mind, that would indicate what? Why, it would mean that gas prices are decreasing. But they are not, are they???
Now, try to think. Actually stop the attempt to place blame on the presidency, who ever is there. Why are prices not reacting to supply and demand???

Then you said this:

1. Because the oil companies CONTROL supply. They control how much they pump out of the ground. AND, they own the refineries. SO THEY CONTROL THE SUPPLY.

You said oil companies control the supply, but the Laws of Supply and Demand doesn't apply. If you weren't so bad at English, you would understand that you are ultimately saying Oil Companies are not directly effecting oil prices by using oil supply to influence oil demand.

So which is it? Are they influencing supply and demand or aren't they. Think before you answer.

Ignorance, yes. On your part. I have worked with the oil folks. They think people like you are the cattle for their price games. They ratchet the price up, you complain louder and louder, until they bring the price back down a bit. Then you stop yelling. And you pay the price they want. Take a class in economics and pay special attention to monopoly power.

Then you may have a clue. Exxon, or BP, or Phillips, or Shell are not local distributors. Jesus, that was a stupid comparison. They are multinational corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees. You really need to get a grip.

Exxon, Shell and Philips are local oil companies. Multi-international just means they operate in more than one country. This doesn't change the fact that these countries are based in the United States.

Also, they don't have hundreds of thousands of employees. They barely have that many by a combined total. Is anyone really suppose to believe that you have 'worked with the oil folks?' I think you better stop making things up about yourself before I expose you as another wannabe in an industry you really are clueless about.

Well, Tanya, I guess you should write your own economics book. Any that you will find out there today will tell you that the oil industry is an oligopolistic marketplace. The major oil companies have extreme monopolistic power. You do not seem to understand that, or perhaps you do not want to. But, if Exxon wants to raise prices, all it needs do is raise prices, and the others always follow. Always. Because they know they can. Until the price reaches a point that causes too much trouble for them, in a number of areas. Then the price ratchets down a bit. In unison.

That's not how it works at all. You're just rambling off your opinions. For you to understand how it works, you have to figure out what you want to discuss. What determines the prices of gasoline and the price of oil are different. Supply and Demand is a straight forward example of determining both, HOWEVER, beyond this explanation, the fundamentals regarding the gas prices and oil prices are totally different. The price of oil as we know it is actually set in the oil futures market. Oil Companies do not have control of the Futures market in any way, shape or form.

Market sentiments determines the price for oil. The belief that oil will become more scarce in the future, speculators are likely to buy up futures contracts, and vice versa for the decrease of oil demand in the response of the decrease in purchasing of Futures contracts.

Now you are free to expose your ignorance on what the Futures Market entails.

Hardly. If you read the article, you would see it is the opinion of a team of well respected Economists. See the difference? One man, versus a team of well respected economists. It is not hard, if you try. I try not to use unqualified sources. I leave that to you.

One man wrote that article. That's not a team. The man isn't even an economist, but an economics professor.

Try again.

You should be embarrassed. How stuff works?? Real economic experts in the area of gas prices. Dipshit.

All the sources on the article are directed from the EIA. Regardless, you cannot refute it so I can only assume that I am correct, as usually.

Talk to me when you want to use something else besides your ignorant opinions.

 

[AmazonTania]

That's nice.



This point is irrelevant because you have just admitted to yourself that oil production has increased. This would mean that the price IS reacting to supply and demand. Couldn't wait until I was done with my response to make yourself sound moronic?



Only 8 cents of distributing and marketing are actually contributed towards gas prices, so that is far from wrong. To assume that any oil company can control the price directly is to assume that any distributor can set any price at will and the market will purchase this item regardless of the price. This is sheer economic ignorance.

Oil prices are strictly set based on supply and demand, just like any commodity on this Earth. Like any commodity, as I have said earlier, it is subject to volatility. Which means the price of a commodity can be influenced by just about anyone, or anything. Future's Traders, Commodities Speculators, Taxes, Mother Nature, and Government policy. This is not limited to the Congress, Federal Reserve or President of the United States. In most cases, it requires the help of all three.

All of these things can effect supply and demand. It doesn't change the fact that no sole arbiter can determine what the price of gas will be, but individuals (including the President) can effect prices to a certain extent.



Those aren't facts. That's just the opinion of one man. But I suppose I am wrong and you are right simply because you have 'a source.' But what if I have a source too?



So I guess we are both wrong now. No, only you are wrong.lWell, you would be considered more incorrect, as you don't really have the economically fortitude to understand these things. But keep trying, as I know you will ultimately embarrass yourself.

By the way. That last sentence. 'You don't really have the economically fortitude....." And you being the one who loves to tout your ability at composition. You may want to look that one up in you dictionary. Left me wondering.

We've previously established that she's not a citizen, and I think English is not her first language either.

Grammar apparently makes all the difference in the world when you are an economic illiterate, I suppose.

Actually she might be an alien. That would explain a lot.

I fail to see what this has to do with your ignorance on the subject matter.

 

[AmazonTania]

By the way, you seem to make a really big deal of having a Series 3 license. Having said license simply proves you passed a single exam, by getting 70% of the 120 questions on the Series 3 test, correct. Jesus.

Maybe you should actually research what a Series 3 license is.

It is a really simple thing. Not much to research. 120 question multiple choice test, you need to score 70%. Damn, now that is rigorous. Should give you a right to call yourself an expert. Good for you.

I'll do the research for you. I already know you're pretty bad at it.

Definition of 'Series 3'
A securities license entitling the holder to sell commodities or futures contracts.

If you are a smart, dedicated individual seriously pursuing a financial services career in the area of financial risk management, then you are someone for whom this guide is intended.

Futures are the crossroads where the Farm Belt and Wall Street meet. Without futures traders, the market for grains and meats of all kind would be an inefficient network of brokers trying to understand farming and farmers trying to understand brokerages. It would be plagued by supply imbalances (gluts and shortages), both local and worldwide. American and global consumers alike would be unable to budget how much to spend on next month's groceries.

The exam contains 120 questions, about a third of which are true/false and the other two thirds multiple choice. A successful candidate will achieve a score of at least 70% on both the industry knowledge and regulatory sections. A very high score on one section will not offset a failing score on the other. Therefore, the candidate should be well prepared for all of the exam topics. Though study habits differ by individual, in general, a well prepared candidate will have studied in excess of 70 hours.

Exam Contents
The exam is broken down into eight topics:

• Futures theory and terminology;
• Market operations;
• Orders and price analysis;
• Hedging;
• Spreading;
• Speculating in futures;
• Option hedging, speculating and spreading; and
• Regulation.

Of these, regulation is the most important. Not only does it account for 35 of the 120 exam questions, it is graded as a stand-alone test. You have to score 70% correct on the regulation questions in addition to 70% on the others – collectively called "market knowledge" – in order to pass the exam. You could score 100% on the market knowledge but, if you don't get at least 25 correct answers out of the 35 questions devoted to regulation, you fail the entire exam.

The test preparers further break down hedging into two sub-topics:

Basic hedging, basis calculation and hedging commodity futures; and Hedging financial and monetary futures.

Speculating is similarly divided into:

• Speculating in commodity futures and
• Speculating in financial and monetary futures.

http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/series-3/studyguide/chapter1/introduction.asp

Very sad. Can't even do research without looking like a complete tool.

Do you have a basic understanding of what your are dealing with, now?

I will pass and look to the experts for expertise.

Found more internet bloggers and columnist to pass off as experts, I see.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. The *fucking* oil companies are controlling the price, they all send out noticed to each other how much they are going to raise and or lower the price of gasoline/diesel, that's *price fixing*!!!!!
2. And this government headed by *fucking buckwheat* does nothing to stop the *price fixing*!!!!!
3. Thanks *fucking* Obama!!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas