Local efforts are under way to help Oklahoma tornado victims. Find out how you can help here.
According to my definition, a number is computable if its decimal can be written down by a machine.
What do you compute this weekend?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Two articles today in the RT.
Page one, continued on page 14; Job Growth disappoints economists, paragraph 21; “Anticipating weaker world demand, investors drove down the price of oil…”.
Page 14: Falling gas prices give consumers some relief, paragraph 4; “…worries about a slowing global economy and waning oil demand.”
Wait! How can this be? I thought demand for oil was constant.
Must be semantics.
1. Funny how speculators drive down the oil price but only Obama drives it up.
The Obama recovery only created 69K jobs in May, about half of what was expected. Unemployment climbed to 8.2%. The April jobs created number, originally reported at 115K, was revised downward to 77K. First quarter ’12 GDP was revised to 1.9%, down from 2.2%.
The economy is moving in the wrong direction toward another recession.
The recession officially ended July, ’09. After three and a half years of Obama and a $1T plus stimulus package, this is not supposed to be happening. Massive spending, printing money, near zero interest rates, bank and auto bailouts, none of these Keynesian tricks have worked.
In his message yesterday, Obama could only blame the terrible mess left by the Bush admin. and the GOP. After three and a half years and over a trillion dollars spent, the voters are not buying that lame excuse anymore.
The voters will not give Obama four more years based on his failed first term.
It’s time for bringing back the low tax and smaller government policies that ignited the rapidly expanding economy of the ’80s.
The Obama admin’s war on fossil fuels only drives the cost of energy up, including oil.
#2 Speculators base their bids on many factors. The energy policy of the U.S. is most certainly one of the most signifigant factors. But, of course you know this.
Let’s take a moment to talk about how well corporate socialism works and why the rich and their supporters almost never want to talk about how much taxpayer money they get.
Conservatively, “Nationwide state and local subsidies for corporations totaled more than $70 billion in 2010“.
Tell me again why we support their wealth growing?
“Subsidies for retail businesses are the worst kind of corporate welfare because, as the end of the economic chain, retailing grows only when population and incomes increase. If population or income falls, then subsidies for new projects like Congel’s damage existing businesses, where people would otherwise be spending their money.”
Oh silly me, of course all these brave, smart BUSINESSMEN know best!
And while we are talking, let’s talk about how well served we have been as a nation when a BUSINESSMAN is in the White House!
“Perhaps the most important point that Lynch makes is that, contrary to the way people seem to frequently put it, the Presidency is not like being a Chief Executive Officer. Not only does the analogy end up being an incomplete description of presicsely what a President’s duties and role in the Federal Government actually are, but it deliberately ignores the significant differences between the two roles.”
Not only will America not be served by a Willard Romney presidency, we are likely to be just as burnt and broken as the last CEO President (Bush) left us.
The Obama derangement syndrome has made people lose their minds if they are voting to go backwards. But I am not surprised.
They can’t even like the man’s dog FGS!
It All Comes Down to Race
Your opinions on health care reform, taxes, and even the president’s dog come down to racial bias.
Spare me the denials, nothing else makes sense. Except of course total ignorance of how governments, budgets and economies work. That ignorance could explain the ODS, but no one admits that either.
Jim Lucas #1, I can go as many rounds as you like:
Oil prices are constant continually occurring or recurring
Oil prices have been constant since it was discovered: Continually occurring; persistent
In any semantic game you want to play, oil remains constant: regularly recurrent; continual; persistent
You cannot “win” because you are playing a stupid game. Many words have more than one meaning, no matter how badly you wish that was not so for your pejorative purposes.
#8 Not only did you state demand was constant, but when shown by myself & others you were/are wrong, you sidetracked to constant & “increasing”.
Not only contradictory in concept, but the latter also inaccurate, as today’s news cleary show demand is decreasing.
Which is it Ms. Saunders? Are they constant, increasing or decreasing? Or perhaps all three? In your world maybe.
#7 Perfect exaple of my assertion of, accept the liberal position, and their (your?) expertise on how “governments, budgets and economies work”, or one is a racist.
You win Jim Lucas! Oil is not constant. Not in any sense of the word, not in any way it could be interpreted and most assuredly not in any way that matters. Obviously I misspoke out of pure ignorance. And I so appreciate your education.
You are wrong and obfuscating on your opinion of #7 but you sure know the meaning of constant.
It All Comes Down to Race
#10 Your opinions on health care reform, taxes, and even the president’s dog come down to racial bias.
Spare me the denials, nothing else makes sense. Except of course total ignorance of how governments, budgets and economies work. That ignorance could explain the ODS, but no one admits that either.
Once again, your words, not mine. “Spare me the denials..”.
Sorry about the way my # 11 transmitted. I copy/pasted & that’s the way it went. The words speak for themselves.
Richard, my #5 today in reference to your #2…..and Ms. Saunders, reference our “constant” bicker in relation to demand of oil.
Richard, I spoke of American energy policy. In all truth there is none, and in my opinion this is a good thing. By “policy” I meant the approach of this (or any) administration as to the market. This would include a huge myriad of things, from regulation to political rhetoric. It would be true of the approach to other, if not all markets, but the context was oil, and it is a sensitive one.
Ms. Saunders, I agree with your point that no particular supply addition will make a huge immediate dent in (gas) prices. Yet the market is driven by supply & demand. Not only are all affects cumulative, but any reductions in the pace of supply vis-a-vis the pace of demand (neither are constant) would exacerbate, especially considering lag times of bringing new production & distribution (Keystone) on line. In addition, even though the market is global, as you pointed out, there are advantages of trade involved that very much suggest we produce. OPEC controls less than 50% of the oil we use. This is good, and we should strive to reduce that number.
Good night to you both.
Also, the tens of thousands of good jobs directly created, many more indirectly and the multiplier affect (5-6 to 1) on the economy. Also, drilling and distributing on land is safer, cleaner and more efficient than off shore. We also need to build new, safer more technologicaly advanced and efficient refineries.
Regardless of “whose side you’re on”, the recall election in Wisconsin is a terrible precedent. Based on no even alledged wrong doing, other than political differences, a special interest group has thwarted the will of the citizens in a duely conducted election.
Walker looks like the winner (again). The very special interest groups that created this fiasco did not even back Barrett, the same nominee as in the “first” election, in his primary.
Obama stayed conspicuously away. This will cost him. Yet, he & his poltical cronies concluded this was a loser. Damage control dictated angering his base by lack of support, rather than being seen backing a losing campaign.
Yes, I am aware of the 2003 Davis recall. It was fought huff & nail by the Dems & they were right. The recall laws that exist today were in the most part ushered in by the “progressive” movement in the early 20th century. They should be used in cases of illegal activity, not political fiat.
#4 “The Obama admin’s war on fossil fuels only drives the cost of energy up, including oil.”
Oh really, John R, I guess that’s why the cost of natural gas is skyrocketing so much.
You just make it so easy sometimes.
A link from Prof. Ruccio’s site which includes a recording of the Economic Bill of Rights speech by FDR and some good news from the Maine Democrats.
And some decent analysis by other economists including Krugman, Stiglitz, and Davidson with a caveat that they’re trying to save capitalism but afraid to look beyond it.
…There is a kernel of truth in the accounts of both Krugman and Stiglitz. Capitalism is an interconnected economy in which the spending of some becomes the income for others, and for decades now capitalism has created a massive redistribution of income and wealth from the majority at the bottom to a tiny minority at the top.
However, what neither Krugman nor Stiglitz wants to see is that government spending can’t possibly reverse the fortunes of those at the bottom without creating further problems for those at the top. Wealthy individuals and large corporations do want to see economic activity pick up so that they can sell more goods and services and make even more profits. But they don’t want anyone to demonstrate that they’re the problem—to show that private capitalism is incapable of generating sufficient jobs and pay for those at the bottom, or to impose further regulations on their activities—and that a different set of economic arrangements would render them superfluous….
To #13 (Jim Lucas): “OPEC controls less than 50% of the oil we use. This is good, and we should strive to reduce that number.“.
This is an excellent point, and it’s one of the primary reasons I’d like to see us import more petroleum from Canada and produce more of our own. I hate the fact that a good chuck of my gasoline dollars go to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. So even if gas prices don’t go down by a penny, the Keystone XL pipeline and drilling in the ANWR and off the Atlantic/Pacific coasts are still worth doing.
And if you look at the impact on our annual trade deficit, it makes even more sense. We currently send hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country every year for petroleum, which unquestionably has a negative impact on the economy.
#16 gdad, to bring you up to date:
The cost of natural gas has plummeted because of the recent discoveries of large reserves in WV,PA,NY,VA,OH, etc. over the passed few years, new hydrologic fracking technology, and coupled with the relatively high cost of oil. This has made extracting natural gas from shale cheap.
It hasn’t been that long ago that the US was a net importer of natural gas. Now we are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and a net exporter.
Much to the dismay of the Obama admin. and the EPA, about all of these new natural gas reserves are on private land making it harder for the feds to control. But the EPA is trying hard to regulate fracking out of business.
Interestingly, the Sierra Club a decade or so ago was a strong supporter of cleaner natural gas to replace coal fired electric plants. Now that natural gas is so cheap and plentiful, the Sierra Club has changed its tune and is against more use of natural gas as well as coal and oil. They really want to outlaw all fossil fuels.
Obama has already said that he wants to make coal fired electric plants non existant. That is probably why West Virginia Dems voted 40% for a prison inmate rather than for Obama in the WV Dem primary.
The Obama admin is not granting any more oil drilling leases and blocked the Canadian oil pipeline. Certainly not conducive to more future oil supply.
Typically, on Friday Obama blamed the terrible economic numbers for May and 1Q ’12 on the GOP for blocking his policies!
What can he be talking about? For the first 2 years of his admin., the Dem controlled Congress gave Obama everything he wanted with the exception of cap and trade and union card check which would have only made the economy worse.
Obama got his stimulus package, Obamacare, fannie and freddie bailouts, cash for clunkers, Dodd-Frank, the Wall St. and bank bailouts. The Fed. gave Obama QE I, QE II, near zero interest rates with a promise to continue easy money for the next few years. Now the Dems are demanding a QE III, more of the same mismanagement that got us into this mess in the first place.
Even after the GOP gained control of the House, Congress gave Obama the payroll tax holiday for ’11 and ’12, 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, and continued tax cuts with no spending cuts. Hardly signs of the GOP blocking Obama and the Dems.
The GOP controlled House has sent some 30 bills to the Senate that haven’t been acted upon.
For over 3 years, the Senate has refused to act on a budget bill as required by law even though the House has sent them up. The way our system is supposed to work is both Houses are supposed to pass their budget bills, and any differences are should be ironed out in conference committee. Of course this would mean the Dems would have to make compromises, just as the GOP would, and that means some spending cuts.
I ask again, how has the GOP blocked Obama’s policies? It is his policies that have given the country the worst recovery since WW II and the economy is getting weaker, not stronger.
The voters know who to blame and it’s Obama and the Senate Dems.
A couple of interesting economic stories.
Apparently a company called American Apparel really does make their clothes here in the US. Something I did not know. There is economic pressure for them to begin making some items overseas in order to remain profitable. I’d like to suggest we support our own and the next time you go looking for clothes, consider this company. I know I will.
Also, the other day, Thurs. I think, a letter to the editor asked if the economics being taught to our children in the public schools wasn’t essentially propaganda for private enterprise (which it is). Now there is some research showing free markets aren’t good for family values. And we wonder why liberals don’t understand the conservative mindset that link the idea these two items need and support each other.
…They reported the highest ratings of well-being among children living in the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark — nations that, far more than we, tax the rich, regulate industry and provide such public services as paid parental leave, art subsidies and excellent public schools.
The lowest overall rank went to nations pursuing the strongest free-market agenda: the U.S. and Britain, both of which ranked in the bottom third for five of the six key dimensions of child well-being. The U.S. ranked dead last among these 21 affluent countries in child poverty and second to last in “family and peer relationships” and “behaviors and risks.” The likelihood of a child skipping breakfast, of becoming fat, of smoking pot, of a teenage girl getting pregnant — on all these measure, the U.S. and Britain ranked worse than nearly all the other nations….
21 – the fallacy, Scott, is that the US nor Britain have free market economies. Neither does.
Any economy that is dependent on centrally managed unsound money; the regulatory whims of whichever pack of liars is in power at the time (none of whom ever lessens the regulatory environment in order to make the market more free); and an out of control leviathan that feeds on the livelihoods it is to govern…
…is NOT free.
Actions, not words.
My niece married a young man who was born in Sweden. His family came to the US because of the high taxes there and his father, who was well off, moved his import/export business to the US.
I am aware of a Swedish doctor who came to the US for economic reasons.
The point is that if taxes are increased, people change their behavior.
With all its flaws, I’ll take a capitalist economy every time, and the less regulated and the lower the taxes, the better.
We are and have been lessening our imports from hostile nations.
“The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said. Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day, the department said today in the Petroleum Supply Monthly report. In 2010, daily net imports averaged 269,000 barrels. U.S. refiners exported record amounts of gasoline, heating oil and diesel to meet higher global fuel demand while U.S. fuel consumption sank.”
I think it is unfair for anyone to say we are not still working on the problem and since we are exporting product, it is harder to fathom the justification of need for either the Keystone Pipeline or the drilling in pristine natural habitats. We should take this opportunity to pursue alternative fuels and power generation with all of our effort IMO. It is not “easy oil” if it ruins some of the precious open natural habitats.
To #24 (Sandi): The Bloomberg headline is incorrectly titled. It should read “US was net Finished Petroleum Product exporter in 2011″. For raw import/export data, see the Department of Energy’s data here: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm
Last week, the US imported 9,056 thousand barrels of crude oil and 1,834 thousand barrels of finished petroleum products, for a total of 10,890 thousand barrels of imports.
During that same time, the US also exported 39 thousand barrels of crude oil and 2,852 thousand barrels of finished petroleum products, for a total of 2,891 thousand barrels of exports.
In no way could this situation be construed as the US being a net oil exporter. Because of falling demand for gasoline, we have surplus refining capacity, which allows us to refine petroleum for re-export to other countries. However, for total petroleum demand, we still import vast amounts of crude oil and are nowhere near “energy independent”.
In 2011, the US imported 42% of the oil it used: http://energy.gov/articles/first-peek-our-energy-future and http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_production.cfm. This is better than we were doing 7 years ago, but there’s still substantial room for improvement. Energy efficiency improvements would help, as would increased domestic production and increasing imports from friendly neighbors.
Why not increase our importing of oil from friendly nations such as Canada and Mexico as well as increasing domestic production. Especially since there is no cheaper altrenative on the horizon for the rest of this century.
Trust me, the sky will not fall!
26. John R – look at the refineries. The oil tanks and oil lines are full, the refineries are backed up with raw material.
Why would we import from hostile nations over Canada or South America?
Parse the statistics all you like, we cannot argue for drilling in ANWR or the desperate need for the Keystone Pipeline when we are exporting gasoline and oil products. It is just not sensible. I did not say we were a net exporter of raw crude and neither did Bloomberg, but the Canadian crud crude, if it gets the pipeline, will most assuredly not stay here either.
Our import/export story is one of progress and that is what some of you cannot stand to admit.
It would obviously not help Willard Romney defeat President Obama if the truth of the oil industry was to be widely discussed.
“The United States has made broad changes to its refinery infrastructure — closing unproductive facilities along the Eastern seaboard and bolstering refining operations throughout the Gulf Coast and Midwest. Output has risen correspondingly over the past year; overall operable capacity rose to 17.7 million barrels per day in December, a 0.8% increase from the figures drawn a year prior. In its fourth quarter, Valero Energy (NYSE:VLO), the largest independent U.S. refiner, exported 5% of its gasoline production and a marked 17% of its diesel production.”
#19 John R, you said Obama has only driven up the cost of fuel. I showed that’s not true. Glad to bring you up to date.
To #28 thru #30 (Sandi): Where do you think Valero Energy uses as raw material for their refinery operations? It’s crude oil!! They aren’t creating gasoline and diesel out of thin air. And right now, approximately 40% of that feedstock for refinery operations is imported crude. About half of those imports come from the relatively unfriendly countries of OPEC: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wimpc_s1_w.htm
We could import less from OPEC if we produced more of our own. We could import less from OPEC if we imported more from Canada. Well, we could, except that too many people are determined to block both of these options. They think they’re helping the environment, but when you realize that every barrel that we cannot produce ourselves or import from Canada has to be shipped from Saudi Arabia via supertanker (Exxon Valdez ring a bell?) and then pumped to refineries via pipeline, you cannot help but questions their efforts.
I don’t think you are being straight here Brian. Oil is a commodity on the world market. NOTHING can or will guarantee that even if we could make up that 40% from imports with domestic crude, for some unknown length of time, that it would all stay in America, impact fuel prices or provide any long term solution for the OPEC hostile nation issue (which Saudi Arabia is not). Also, there is nothing stopping us from only buying Canadian crud crude piped in, or South American crude right now that I am aware of.
Right Ms. Saunders….and we should quit producing (please note, producing, as in finished product, this does not mean we provide all the raw materials) cars, sewing machines and water heaters. We export those too.
To #33 (Sandi): I’m being perfectly straight here. If we could replace that 40% with domestic production, the vast majority of it would remain in the US, as it costs money to ship it elsewhere. Do you think supertanker operators are willing to haul it to the other side of the planet for free? Especially when you consider how much fuel they burn in the process?
And even if more of our product were to be exported, that would help reduce our $560 billion trade deficit ($332 billion of which was for imported oil): http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Trade_Deficit.htm. We could pay US oil workers instead of OPEC. Why should we keep outsourcing what we could potentially produce domestically?
And yes, there are factors that limit our imports from Canada. Namely, lack of pipelines. If there were enough, nobody would be bothering with trying to build a Keystone XL pipeline at all. As for South America, we’re already buying all they can produce. It’s not enough. Thus the supertankers from OPEC.
The import and export of oil has lots of variables. For instance, shipping is a major variable. We tend to buy oil from the countries closest to us and the ports closest to/ from the supplier. Therefore we may import on east coast and export from the Gulf or Alaska simply to get the oil to the refineries by the cheapest means. We buy oil from the source that is cheapest with the best product. Therefore we may buy Sudi Crude because it is a better grade than Canadian crude much of which is a heavier oil. We also have some refineries set up for the Saudi Grade Oil vs. some set up for the heavier Canadian oil and therefore have to ship to the correct refinery. Note that oil purchases and sales are controlled by the oil companies not the US govt. The oil companies buy based on their long-term contracts and based on pricing. Accordingly, anything drilled, piped, or shipped will be based on the oil companies contracts over a period of years. New wells, new pipe may bring new sources but only if the the current contracts are fulfilled as well. Oil companies do not want an over supply of oil as it lowers prices, causes storage costs, disrupts the steady flow, and causes losses on oil processed. Accordingly, they attempt to keep the flow to and from the refineries on an equal keel. We currently have more oil coming in than we can refine. That is pushing prices down and costing more in storage. however, the Iran restrictions are due to take place at the end of the month. Iraq, the slow down in India and China, and Libya are expected to make up the loss of Iranian oil to Europe and China. If it does, then we may see prices continue downward. If it does not, you will see prices rise. You will also have speculative costs affecting the price of oil as bidders outside the oil industry will speculate on the future market and affect the costs. You also have the offshore ALaska oil drilling opening up soon. Obama has OK’s this drilling for Shell oil and others as it is not deep water drilling. Note this was done over the objections of many environmentalists.
To #36 (Richard): “You also have the offshore ALaska oil drilling opening up soon. Obama has OK’s this drilling for Shell oil and others as it is not deep water drilling.”
Wow. Didn’t know that. This is a welcome first step. I hope to see more. [Like in the ANWR and Atlantic/Pacific coasts.] Even if the combination of contractual obligations and increased domestic production cause flow problems in the short term, those contracts will eventually be renegotiated or expire, at which point flow adjustments can be made.
37. The deep water drilling remains a well by well process due to the additional hazards posed. That will take time.
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Tue, 21 May 2013 20:14:06 +0000