anyone see 60 minutes last night?

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
cheesehead said:
OH NO, I SEE THE BIG MODERATOR HAMMER COMING! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/whoopin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif ... Oh no.. no, not this time! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif ... No, that post needs to actually be preserved for posterity... here... allow me...

[ QUOTE ]
People enlist in your army because they were made poor and unemployed by the big corporations and cant find any work anywhere else, OR they are so uneducated that cant get a decent job elsewhere, OR they are latino emmigrants with a green card that serve to get citizenship.
Your culture needs oil only because the big auto companys dont want to spend the money for research and development and make cleaner oil engines. So, you are stuck with echnology in your cars that date sback to the 1970s. Lets also dont forget the american way, and I mean those huge and heavy cars that weight way over two tones and hence they need a ridicoulously big engine to run.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am going to exercise my biased adminstrative prerogative here and allow that one to stand without any admonitions. This is a perfect example of the ignorance of opinions in other parts of the world and the gluttonous appetite for misinformation and the desire to make oneself seem somehow superior.

I would like to request though, that no one takes up this line of discussion any further. The post speaks for itself as well as the poster. Let it go. Let's move on with the various other topics that have been brought up.

*still chuckling*.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

 

[zorba]

You want to make me feel embarrased or something? If you do, believe me it works!

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
zorba said:
You want to make me feel embarrased or something? If you do, believe me it works!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it would appear as if I didn't have to do anything at all to accomplish that. As I said in my last post, your post speaks for itself as well as you. I can't top that.

 

[pedalinbob]

um, yeah.

anyone have more info on the new arc4???


Bob<-- got slapped for that one...edited to avoid physical and mental damage secondary to a public flogging!

 

[raggie33]

watches

 

[Greta]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twakfl.gif<----bob ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

do what you know is right with that post, Bob... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif

Added: Thanks Bob... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[KC2IXE]

[ QUOTE ]
tylerdurden said:
[ QUOTE ]
cheesehead said:
A part of the war is to secure cheap oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we just wanted the oil, all we had to do was simply ignore the UN sanctions (like France and Russia did) and just buy the oil for cheap. As it is now, we will end up paying *more* for the oil than if we went that route since we'll have to pay full market price as it's "legit" oil instead of black market stuff. Why do you think france opposed the war so strenuously? Because they were getting the cheap oil!

[/ QUOTE ]

And for that matter, we had so many troops in Saudi Arabia that we could have just taken THEIRS

 

[JonSidneyB]

From an Economic standpoint energy independance actually does not make sence. From a strategic point of view it does. Some thing to consider, why has fuel not had the same inflation applied to it as other commodities? There is an answer and I know what it is. Second, it does not matter where to fuel comes from if it is a true commodity from a price standpoint, thats the nature of a commodity. If Europe were got all of there oil from two sources and any other country from a third source. They would both actually pay the same. The only exception would be if a supplier does not have access to a market. If the supplier was legitimate, why would he take a lower price when a higher price could be had at will.

 

[DrJ]

.

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think that disagreement on important issues is to be expected...and I disagree with anyone that disagrees with me concerning my opinion on disagreement....

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinser2.gif

 

[pedalinbob]

LOL!

tooooo funny, DrJ!!!

thanks for the laugh!

Bob

 

[BB]

To put the true cost of gasoline in perspective:

As of January 13, 2004, a barrel of higher grade oil costs, per CNN, ~USD $30-34 (42 US gallons or 159 liters).

Current cost of home heating fuel (wholesale--CNN) ~USD $1.00 per gallon).

From well to car (based on $28/barrel in Maine--because it was handy ) is roughly $1.27 per gallon. This is a nice web page that lists the costs for various steps in the product's life cycle.

Here is a March 2001 chart from Exxon-Mobil that shows--surprise/surprise that the costs for them to supply gasoline is almost the same in various world wide markets (about ~$1.00 per gallon) and the major differences are TAXES. Interestingly, the UK cost to make gasoline was slightly cheaper than the US--but the UK had the highest consumer prices: $1.50- vs $4.00+ per US gallon.

And by the way, the documents that where presented as a basis for Iraq's invasion by CBS et.al. are actually from part of the Energy Project that was the focus of Vice President **** Cheney's attention before the 9-11 strikes and not as CBS said ''and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.'' Several other countries were also listed in the same report with maps and names: UAE and Saudi Arabia. And the Suitors include China, Ireland, Germany, Finland, France, Algeria, etc. Clearly countries that want to sell services and buy oil--not invade.

-Bill

 

[JonSidneyB]

As mentioned earlier, it is impossible for a commodity price to vary from area to area long run. The difference can only be in transportation costs. Outside of that the underlying price. The price you pay at the pump is two thing, the price of the gas plus the tax.

What causes this is a fact that can not be eliminated known as Arbitrage.

This being the case, to those who said that we did this to benefit the US have a problem. It cannot benefit US consumers without benefiting all consumers.

Also think about this, Agriculture is dead without fuel. So fuel is food. Think about the next bite you eat and the fuel that went into it. So we were not fighting for Oil, we were fighting for everyone who eats.

 

[brightnorm]

[ QUOTE ]
zorba said:
As if it is not devaueled enough already! 1 euro is about 1.30 USD...

[/ QUOTE ]
When I was in Austria in the early 70's it was 4 marks to the dollar. As an American of modest means I felt like a rich man.

Brightnorm

 

[pedalinbob]

i think anyone that had prior plans for iraq should be thrown in prison.

Bush had plans, and he is guilty.

um...whoa...wait a minute here...there was nother guy planning the same thing:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/libera.htm

he should be in prison right next to Bush.


Bob

 

[JonSidneyB]

zorba>the currency devaluation of the Euro is not caused the the US. The underlying value is the total of goods and services Provided divided by the (M1+M2+M3X its velocity).

There are two tools used for short term effect monetary policy and fiscal policy. It takes both of these tools to hit short term targets, it us usually impossible to do this with just one of the tools. The EU forgot to stay awake during Intermediate Macro II. If they were awake they would have realized that they limited themselves to one single short term tool while the United States maintains two tools.

Because of the EU wanted to maintain stability across its borders, it has to give up its ablity to use both tools to stimulate growth and has to rely on productivity and physcal policy alone.

The United States cannot be blamed for the Euros Decline.

 

[cheesehead]

JonB,

Fuel used for argiculture isn't usually taxed in most countries for the reasons you give. But do you think that it's appropriate for an American mom to drive a giant Ford Excursion to pick up her kids from school (paying less for a gallon of gas than for bottled water)?

I missed the newflash that the euro is devalued relative to the dollar. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif

cheese

 

[JonSidneyB]

If it is right or wrong the way you put makes it a normative question. Economics simply shows cause and effect not if it is right or wrong. Even if it is taxed or not taxed does not change that it is a supply issue.

The problem occurs if we start placing moral value before knowing all the cause and effect. The world has witnessed many problems cause by well meaning we should do this or that because its the right thing to do with out measuring all the secondary effects.

In the absence of subsidies and government intervention, we make our living by serving others. Even items of dubious social good. The only reason money has value is that it can be exchanged for someone elses productivity.

If there was no intervention, we make our living by serving others. The price will be a combination of supply and demand. In order for someone to gain a large income, they need to provide some type of value. If they become highly compensated they had to provide more of what others wanted to get what they wanted for them self. If there is no reward for being highly compensated, there is less incentive for someone to produce. We produce more than we consume or we are a drag on the economy. Some things shouldn't be produced as thier negative effects are felt by others and is not included in the transaction.

If we take away an opportunity for someone to buy something, there is less incentive for someone to produce. While many people will just buy something else, some will not do the extra work, make the next deal, work the overtime if something is not available to them. The ability to drive that Big SUV to go get that gallon of water was the reward for doing what some people in socioty wanted. What if it was a chemist looking for a cure to cancer and they like nothing better than to waste gas bye taking an oversized vechical to go get a gallon of water. Do we want to loose this persons productivity because thier reward is gone. Maybe, maybe not, that is an entirely different question. The only way to answer this for sure is to be able to measure the secondary effect accurately.

I contend that Oil is not as scarce as we are led to believe or we are close to what would be a developmental threshold. If an alternative cost $2.00 to do the equivilent work of a gallon of gasoline and the gasoline costs $1.50. There is no direct incentive for an individual to invest in the alternative. The closer that gasoline gets to the alternatives price, the more likely someone is to try. If this is the case, there is not the same urgency in developed nations and investors to hoard gas supplies which in turn delays alternatives a bit.

The other alternative is that fuel is not scarce yet in terms of world supply. If we were running out the price would be at least matching inflation but really should be going up faster the inflation. The truth is after inflation, the price of gas has been going up, not down.

It is impossible to do an off the cuff economic analysis in a forum like this. The proper way to do it would actually be massive to be accurate and involve a huge amount of math.

I will ask you this question, do you really want to create more disincentives for people to produce and create jobs. I will admit the answer is sometimes yes but this has to be weighed very very carefully.

cheesehead>It is also not big news that the Euro is has devalued relative to the dollar, all you have to do is look
at its trading range wish is available in almost any financial publication. It has to be since trading is done in it all of the time in most cases not to make money but in order to reduce risk.

Economists could not say for sure if the EU would keep its single tool or go to two tools when more realized that it would be difficult to work. But they have as not yet allowed the second tool to be available. Economists did say that if they choose not to, the ability to cause short term change would be severly limited and likely all by itself to devalue. This also does not take into account changes in productivity between to US and Europe. Both are a factor, but the fact that they have lots one of two sort term tools, they have made it difficult for business there to create value to invest in the future. I am afraid if this does not change, the gap will grow.

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
cheesehead said:
But do you think that it's appropriate for an American mom to drive a giant Ford Excursion to pick up her kids from school (paying less for a gallon of gas than for bottled water)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If she can afford it, why not? Should I only use a mini-mag to light my way to the bathroom at 3AM because that's all that my neighbor can afford? Not likely... I use an ARC LSH-P. Maybe if my neighbor stopped tweekin' all his money away, he could afford an ARC too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif

Added after further thought: BTW... there are several moms in my town who pick up their kids in Hummers. Do I sneer at them? Hell no! If I could afford it, I would drive a Hummer too... a black one! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif Because bottom line is that it is MY money and no one has the right to tell me how to spend it! And FWIW... I drink Fiji bottled water... $6.99/6-pack... 'cuz I can.

 

[raggie33]

lol@at this thread