This Clinton campaign idea of somehow busting up the OPEC cartel not only seems impractical (how, exactly would this get done?) but it also bespeaks a real ignorance of what's happening with the price of gas. It's just not the case that the current price escalation is driven by OPEC-induced supply restrictions -- all indications are that everyone's producing as much oil as they possibly can. After all, with prices this high how could you afford not to pump as much oil as you could? It's just that demand for oil is high and rising, so the price goes up.
« The Battle Continues | Main | Will Mac Be Back »
Clinton vs. OPEC
05 May 2008 10:44 pm
Comments (95)
Brother, this is pandering run amuck.
What a shame that this likely won't make news in time to wake up anyone in Indiana and NC still too drunk with Clinton celebrity and demeaning panders. Anyone who supports her because they believe she'll make this gas tax vanish and obliterate OPEC needs to have their head examined.
Immediately.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9oeYySoQEpo
The best thing that can be said for Hillary is that she doesn't really believe in any of this gas tax holiday/suing OPEC stuff, and probably will try to find some excuse to not implement it if she's actually elected.
But of course, none of it bodes well for her getting any sort of sensible energy policy passed if she gets elected by promising cheaper gas...
That being said, this latest positively reeks of desperation. I am second to none in my vast contempt for the intelligence and judgment of my fellow citezens (of all classes and educational levels, mind you; my contempt for the yahoos is exceeded only by my contempt for our bloodthirsty, shortsighted and mendacious elites), but I tend to think that even Americans are capable of seeing just how laughable this latest pander is.
Pity she wasn't in power during the Cold War. Just imagine, she could have sued International Communism for anti-trust violations, shut the USSR down and saved us all a lot of bother.
I don't think people appreciate how much the Iraq War was Dumbya's attempt to break up OPEC. UAE is drying up, Kuwait is pumping balls to the wall as is Saudi. A big impetus for the Iranian nuclear program is their realization that their reserves aren't going to last forever. And Iraq is sitting on a huge pool of reserves and much of the country is poorly explored. Iraq may (note I say may) have larger reserves than Saudi Arabia, whose largest field is probably at peak anyway.
It is obvious to me that the Iraq War is all about setting up our puppet as the new swing producer in OPEC, taking Saudi Arabia's place.
Then again, I'm a high school dropout so what the fuck do I know.
Is there any crazy talk that her white working class supporters won't believe? I get the sense that the Clinton campaign keeps pushing the line further and further out there thinking that at some point even Joe Sixpack will scratch his thick, calcified brow and ask himself whether he's being sold a big, fat sack of shit.
Both Clinton's are lying pieces of shit and everyone with a brain has known this for years and years.
Remember Hillary calling Monica a stalker and saying the whole thing was a vast right wing conspiracy?
Remember Bill being disbarred?
I mean, come on, now. What did you expect?
These people care about NOTHING EXCEPT THEMSELVES!!!!
They are just as bad as Bush.
Seriously, how can any patriotic person who actually believes in democracy condone having two families be in power for 24 or 28 or even 36 straight years (if you could GHWB's VP time)???
Hillary has ZERO to offer except hate, lies and the continuation of the nepotism presidency.
Can we please get rid of the Bushes and Clintons???? They have brought this country nothing but embarrassment.
This OPEC stuff, the Iranian bluster, the gas tax bullshit.
The only reason Hillary is still in this is because half this country are fucking idiots who worship celebrity and wouldn't know how to vote for someone new. This is how W got into office, it's how Arnold won in California, how Hillary stays in it...
Appeal to the common man? Most of these people are fucking idiots and deserve a smack in the head. These are the same idiots who re-elected George Bush!!!!
And the only reason Bill won over the first Bush was because Perot split the vote twice!
The more someone talks about patriotism, the more you know they're a scoundrel, racist, or thief.
I'm so sick of this shit...
Nobody in Washington over the past 30 years has ever thought about breaking up OPEC. Kudos, Hillary, for suddenly realizing that all a president has to do is snap her fingers and make the bad brown men give us their oil at a price we can afford.
I don't believe so much in the orthodox supply and demand economic theory determining prices. Futures were being sold for 2008 back in 2001 and the sober, rational, market had us pegged at around $40/barrel for oil. The brilliant market had factored in increased demand, they had their projections on increased demand and they mostly have held up. They didn't factor in lessened exports from Iraq, but that doesn't make up the difference.
I agree it has little to nothing to do with OPEC. I think you are discounting the irrational, rent-seeking, extremely self-knowlegable nature of the commodities market.
Because we're now in bizarro land, the Saudis are telling people that they've got excess capacity that'll be ready any time now, and Ghawar isn't making the sucky-straw sound at all.
Some other good ideas for the Clinton Campaign:
(1) End confusing practice of other people not speaking English
(2) No more funny-looking money: everyone uses real money, meaning American dollars
(3) World peace now mandatory
And so forth.
I'm glad Hillary is the candidate of solutions, not speeches.
Anyone but Slick Hilly -
"I'm so sick of this shit..."
I advise getting rid of your cable. It helps.
Scientific -
Appreciate the link, but I could only stand a few minutes (or seconds, my mind kinda went blank everytime George "they're always after mi Lucky Charms!" Stepensnuffolufugus started talking).
I need a shower now. Thank God I got rid of extended cable. Now they can only vitimize me when I seek them out.... oh, and Wolf Blitzer is the anti-Christ......
How, exactly would this get done?
The same way she'll get Bush to sign a windfall profit tax. They will see her glorious primary wins and bow to her awesome powers.
That'd be victimize, not vitimizevitamightavegimin......
Demand is only part of the problem - and likely not the primary part. The precipitous decline of the dollar (25% decline in the past 3 years or so) has added significantly to the price of oil on world markets and at the pump. And the dollar drop can be traced directly back to the current US economic problems (i.e. the housing/debt crisis) and the lack of regulatory oversight and economic planning by the Bush Administration.
Oh... and don't forget our Middle East hunt for WMDs that took a significant amount of oil out of the market for the past 5+ years.
Saying it's demand driven tends to absolve the Bush folks of any responsibility - as if it was an inevitable outcome or a force of nature. No so... this is a problem our "leaders" facilitated in a BIG way!
Also, keep in mind that a number of major producers are sequestering oil for their own use.
You see, the producers know better than anyone what the true supply situation is. Note that the Saudis have been lying for at least 20 years, and probably longer, about their actual reserves.
The fact that the Saudis, and others, are now holding back oil to use for themselves is the clearest evidence yet that peak-oil is here.
The magical thinkers who commented here about how this is all market manipulation may want to do a little more research: there is very clear evidence if you care to find it, that the super-giant oil fields that have sustained western civilization (if you want to call it that), are in decline: the North Sea. Prudhoe Bay. Cantarell. Ghawar.
They are all either at peak, or in decline. The Saudis simply won't discuss Ghawar.
So, think magical all you want. Reality is somewhat less forgiving. As will be seen, by and by. In five years, you'll wish oil was 120 bucks a barrel, and gasoline was only 4 bucks.
The current oil price bubble has as much to do with hedge fund types needing a new place to bet their billions (the cdo trading market having gone to pot and the domestic stock market standing at about were it did in 2000) as anything else. Maybe Hillary will propose the obliteration of Goldman Sachs.
First OPEC oil crisis was 1973. Part of Boomer formative years. It, like the Vietnam War, is therefore an archetypical event that will repeat again and again and again until, at last, it's resolved correctly.
Show me the proof, LL.
Where are the gas lines? I remember an OPEC slowdown/strike and this wasn't what it looks like. I have no ideological stake in this, I just don't believe in the theory.
Maybe Hillary will propose the obliteration of Goldman Sachs.
Hey, now that'd be an idea that might have some merit.
Slightly OT, sorry, but it's time for another edition of Paul Krugman descending into complete hackdom over the gas tax proposal. In his latest blog posting, he asks "Is Obama Misrepresenting What I said?" and links to none other than facts.hillaryhub.com. Wow, great source there, Professor Krugman. He says he doesn't have a link to the ad itself, but that's crap; if he can find HillaryHub, surely he can find BarackObama.com.
The controversy is over the use of Krugman's April 28 op-ed, which states: "The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits."
Apparently to Professor Krugman, Clinton's dead-on-arrival proposal to tax the windfall profits of oil companies renders this last part inapplicable to Clinton's gas tax holiday plan. (It also willfully ignores the fact that, if such a tax were passed, the oil companies would simply pass that on to the consumers.)
Thus, in his mind, the real issue here is Obama's use of the quote, and not the larger point that the gas tax holiday is counterproductive and political pandering of the worst kind.
And again- citing HillaryHub? Wow.
I advise getting rid of your cable. It helps.
Excellent advice. Also, digital off-air rocks. Free hi-def and even the standard def looks better than cable.
In five years, you'll wish oil was 120 bucks a barrel, and gasoline was only 4 bucks.
Try next year.
The first year of the Obama administration will be spent discovering the horror of just how completely Bush screwed us.
if such a tax were passed, the oil companies would simply pass that on to the consumers.
Probably not true. At this point in the supply/demand curve, producers push up prices up as high as necessary to clear the market, so they wouldn't be able to raise prices further just because they are being assessed a windfall tax. (This is the same reason the tax holiday wouldn't lower consumer prices either.) Thus Hillary's proposal is pointless rather than evil - she cuts one tax and replaces it with another, leaving zero effect on the consumer price.
The evil comes in lying to voters that this bit of folderol would save them any money, and in bashing Obama for not participating in the same shell game.
Americans are both very fat and very stupid.
The fact that they are very stupid means that probably at least half of them will believe the latest nonsense from the Clintons.
However, the rising oil and food prices gives me hope that they will eat less and walk more and might not be so fat.
(how, exactly would this get done?)
Hillary's certainly not going to throw her lot in with logicians or observers of objective of reality.
She's not going to throw her lot in with Democrats either, apparently.
Ed Marshall: a key difference between 2001 and 2008 is that in 2001 the Chinese didn't have a trillion dollars worth of US government securities to trade for oil. If we had announced in 2001 that we intended to have a war in the Middle Eastern oil fields and that we intended to pay for it by borrowing a trillion dollars from China, the oil futures market would surely have looked different.
If voters fall for this shit then we clearly need to invest everything we have not in oil, but better education.
Matt,
If you're going to post this frequently on oil and gas, would it kill you do to a little homework first?
"After all, with prices this high how could you afford not to pump as much oil as you could?"
Econ 101: Oil producers want to find the optimum level of output that maximizes their profits. That optimum level often isn't their highest level of output.
"It's just that demand for oil is high and rising, so the price goes up."
It's not that simple. Crude oil has almost doubled in the last year. Real global demand has been growing, but it hasn't doubled in the last year. The dollar also hasn't fallen by 50% in the last year. Part of this is speculative demand, and part of this is driven by the relatively low investment in new production driven mainly by resource nationalism (folks like Chavez scaring off needed foreign investment with windfall oil taxes, expropriations, etc.).
Why doesn't Clinton just waterski over a Great White and get it over with? I've never been a big fan--she's reinvented herself so often she makes David Bowie look consistent by comparison--but at the very least I consoled myself by saying that she was a serious person who would probably do a good job if she got the nomination. Evidently I was mistaken--her campaign is beginning to sound like George W. Bush's, only less substantive.
I'm now starting to understand Will Rogers's quote about how you need to be an idealist to become a Democrat, but you need to be a humorist to remain one.
All the impracticalities you point out are true, Matthew. I'd like to add that we get around half of our oil from Mexico and Canada, who are not OPEC members. So even if she were able to overcome the rather stacked odds against 'busting OPEC,' the outcome wouldn't be a game changer as the real protagonists of high oil prices (depreciation of the dollar, geopolitical tensions, supply vs. demand) would still be there.
Maybe, I don't know if we have leveraged a trillion dollars. Further, If you knew in 2001 what a dollar is worth in 2008 if that would have been a great bet. Watching the ups and downs it all seems way more psycholgical than market driven.
I don't know if anyone has the balls to do it, but wind down Iraq and my guess is you are looking at an oil glut. If this was really profitable someone would have built new refinaries and that didn't happen anywhere on the globe.
Why doesn't Clinton just waterski over a Great White and get it over with? I've never been a big fan--she's reinvented herself so often she makes David Bowie look consistent by comparison--but at the very least I consoled myself by saying that she was a serious person who would probably do a good job if she got the nomination. Evidently I was mistaken--her campaign is beginning to sound like George W. Bush's, only less substantive.
I'm now starting to understand Will Rogers's quote about how you need to be an idealist to become a Democrat, but you need to be a humorist to remain one.
Let me ask this scientician ...
If only Hilldog would conquer the moon for us, then all our energy problems would be solved.
Futures prices seven years out are not especially meaningful. They are pretty much just pure speculation at that point.
Ed Marshall:
The debasing of the dollar doesn't help either. Why no one talks about that, I don't know. When you print money like "B-52" Ben has been for the past few years(why do you think the Fed stopped releasing the M3 report?), inflation is sure to follow.
However, the rising oil and food prices gives me hope that they will eat less and walk more and might not be so fat."
Here, here. I'm getting my bike out tomorrow. Gotta be ready for when the Ayraaabbbs invade and the country is all Red Dawn-like...
"She's not going to throw her lot in with Democrats either, apparently."
Uuuuuuugggggghhhhhh! What a stupid, stupid thing for her to do........
"folks like Chavez ..."
Of, COURSE! It was Chavez all along! What about folks like Bush scarin' everybody? Puuulllleeeaaase. If you were an actual free marketeer (TM: Disney Corporation) you'd be more than a little concern about the chaotic effect Bush has had on world markets for everything. Chavez, by comparison, is below the sniff threshhold...
"resource nationalism"
Driven by Bush's foreign and domestic policies, or should I say disasters. The world knows a loser when they see one and they are not betting on him...
Yeah, better to have a wimp like Obama kissing OPEC's and the oil company's asses.
Next thing she'll tell us is that she'll get the Sunnis and the Shiites together and tell them to cut the bullshit and get something done to bring peace to Iraq.
"undecided" (as if),
Please put your face against a moving circular saw blade. I hear it's a lot of fun.
I can't believe Hillary's only defense of this was "I'm not going to listen to what the elitists say." Isn't she supposed to be very smart?
And then her numbskull supporters like Undecided come up with eloquent arguments as well.
I, too, am sick of this shit.
I dunno, Greg Palast-- the thinking man's conspiracy nut-- takes the view the whole point of the Iraq invasion (and the UN sanctions before that) was to suppress Iraqi oil production.
Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world. The Saudis (and their political allies) don't want all that oil coming on the market. If Iraq is mired in civil war, that oil ain't going anywhere.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20480
This is right out of the neocon playbook!
As Greg Palast has shown, the neocons intended to use Iraqi oil to break up OPEC. The oil companies forced Bush to shut that plan down, must to the consternation of the neocons.
See Greg Palast's articles I've referenced here before:
Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-didnt-bungle-iraq-you-fools/
Keeping Iraq's Oil in the Ground
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061406J.shtml
Secret US Plans for Iraq's Oil
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031705A.shtml
"In five years, you'll wish oil was 120 bucks a barrel, and gasoline was only 4 bucks.
Try next year."
Try by end of this year, if Bush attacks Iran. First, Iran will make the Gulf a no-go zone for oil tankers. Then China, pissed at being cut off from Iran's oil and gas, will dump the US dollar. The dollar will sink like a stone.
Some experts are predicting $250/barrel oil and $10-20/gallon gas. Europe pays much more for gas than US consumers do, so it will happen here.
She's a funny lady.
Matt, to learn all about OPEC and the oil price read the Cunning Realist blog, written by a Wall Street guy who, crucially, knows what he's talking about, predicted $100 oil/$1000 gold ages ago, etc. Turns out they really do have a lot to do with it. Site google opec on his blog.
Matt, to learn all about OPEC and the oil price read the Cunning Realist blog, written by a Wall Street guy who, crucially, knows what he's talking about, predicted $100 oil/$1000 gold ages ago, etc. Turns out they really do have a lot to do with it. Site google opec on his blog.
Matt, to learn all about OPEC and the oil price read the Cunning Realist blog, written by a Wall Street guy who, crucially, knows what he's talking about, predicted $100 oil/$1000 gold ages ago, etc. Turns out they really do have a lot to do with it. Site google opec on his blog.
Yeah, better to have a wimp like Obama kissing OPEC's and the oil company's asses.
Frankly, I think maybe too much has been made out of the fact that GWB can hold hands with the Saudi's and not look embarassed by it.
Bill's library took millions from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE but I'm *positive* Hillary is gonna be hell on OPEC. She's gonna be hell on those folks.
Sheesh I'm amazed that people don't get it.
First we outsource those pesky Union jobs to China.
Then we outsource demand for gasoline to China.
So now they have our jobs and our gas.
We may be broke, but at least we're not dirty fucking hippies, or gay.
It's another way of putting arab governments on the defensive while allowing Israel to screw over and expel the Palestinian arabs.
Rihilism,
Why parade your ignorance? The world is more complex than a Marvel comic book. Resource nationalism isn't driven by antipathy toward President Bush (the non-state oil companies getting boxed out are often non-American ones).
Resource nationalism is driven, in some countries (e.g., Brazil), by a rational desire to retain a larger share of the profits from oil extraction; in other cases (e.g., Venezuela) it's driven more by ideological/political considerations and short-term thinking. I characterize Brazil's resource nationalism as more rational than Venezuela's because Brazil -- having a far more capable state-owned oil company in Petrobras -- is less in need of foreign assistance in developing its oil resources than Venezuela; also, since Brazil isn't pointlessly antagonistic to foreign oil companies, it has an apparently more productive working relationship with its foreign partners, Spain's Respol YPF and Britain's BG Group, PLC in developing its major new discoveries off the coast of Rio de Janeiro.
American majors such as ExxonMobil have also been criticized for not investing more in new production, but it's not exactly clear where they should invest, since their access to many foreign oil reserves is limited due to resource nationalism (even in our neighbor and third-largest source of foreign oil, Mexico) and political risk, and 80% of the outer continental shelf of the U.S. is off-limits to exploration. Exxon has been scouting for scraps in countries like Czechoslovakia, and using the bulk of its cash to buy back its own shares, in the absence of greater investment opportunities in increased production.
Maybe she's wrong, but I don't think it's fair to accuse her of pandering when Obama's out there claiming the problem's price gouging. Politicians always simplify economics to make it seem they can do more than they really can.
The gas holiday and breaking OPEC are hope and change for the masses.
The current oil price bubble has as much to do with hedge fund types needing a new place to bet their billions (the cdo trading market having gone to pot and the domestic stock market standing at about were it did in 2000) as anything else. Maybe Hillary will propose the obliteration of Goldman Sachs.
The problem with this theory is that oil futures have physical settlement. At some point, someone has to actually take delivery of a whole bunch of barrels of oil. Very few hedge funds can do this; their offices really aren't that big. So, at some point prior to the delivery date, they have to sell their positions. That would put downward pressure on spot prices to pretty much the same extent that opening the contracts put upward pressure on them.
Speculation can cause short term moves in bulk commodities, but not so much over the medium and long terms. The only way they could is if someone is going out and renting a lot of warehouse space. If anyone is playing this game, it's producers, but it isn't entirely clear that they are.
Gold moves can be all speculation, as it isn't hard to find a place to store it. Most banks will be more than happy to hold on to it for you. Oil and grain are a lot tougher.
The current price of gas and oil is not being driven by OPEC, that is true. It is however being driven by an enormous and growing speculative bubble not unlike the housing bubble as investors park money in commodities rather than in productive ventures. The price of oil is well beyond what can be justified by supply and demand. Measures need to be taken to pop this bubble (as was done with gasoline in Sept of 2006-- remember how abruptly the price fell?). The cuerren tpricing regime is siphoning money from ordinary citizens worldwide and stuffing it in the pockets of speculators-- and the last thing the US economy needsr ight now is yet another bubble.
Re: Where are the gas lines? I remember an OPEC slowdown/strike and this wasn't what it looks like.
Price controls created the gas lines and shortages of the 70s. We don't have anything like that in place today, hence no lines or shortages-- just spiking prices.
I heard the saudis were pumping 8.5 millions of gallons a day when they could be pumping 11.
Is this true? and if they were to pump and we were to threaten to counter disruptions to supply with the strategic reserve then prices might come down.
I cant help but wonder how much this is hurting chinese business.
I heard the saudis were pumping 8.5 millions of gallons a day when they could be pumping 11.
Is this true? and if they were to pump and we were to threaten to counter disruptions to supply with the strategic reserve then prices might come down.
I cant help but wonder how much this is hurting chinese business.
Matt is simply lying just like his new BBF.
The OPEC nations are not pumping to the max.
Why should they?
Matt says "because prices are sooo high!"
No Shit Sherlock.
But they will be higher next month and even higher next year and in 10 years today's prices will look cheap.
So Surprise Surprise Surprise the OPEC nations just might be smart enough to husband their resources.
You know, like a rainy day fund?
And now Matt wants to tell us that the OPEC cartel is completely ineffective in promoting their own interests? Gee, what Harvard whackadoodle taught him that. Wonder if the OPEC nations might disagree, hmmmm?
And Matt, if HRC's vote for the AUF disqualifies her from being president then surely your support for the Iraq war disqualifies you from being a fat @#$%^& pundit, yes?
I mean fair is fair, right? Having been so wrong when do you STFU?
The best part?
Matt has come to parody himself. He feels free to vomit up the most stupid seat of his pants bs as long as he can turn it to an attack on HRC. Geez, he is a prime example of the elites that most of America despises. This is what Obama offers us. This and four years of Duke LaCrosse.
And just for fun let's talk pander shall we?
What about Obama's $1000 a head tax rebate?
What will that cost? How will he pay for it? Does he tell people that his policies will end up raising their taxes and costs across the board?
Better, why isn't Matt's BBF telling voters he WANTS their gas to cost $9 a gallon and looks forward to making them choke on his, hmmmmm, spinach?
Yeah, better to have a wimp like Obama kissing OPEC's and the oil company's asses.
Only one candidate cried when the going got tough, and it wasn't Obama.
What about Obama's $1000 a head tax rebate?
If there was a 1000 rebate at least the money would actually get to the public, which will not happen in the gas tax scam.
You are correct, sir. That Clinton woman certainly is a harlot. Master Obama did soil his breeches during the last debate, however. He has also wet himself on more than a few occasions I am sorry to say. I am not found of laundry day when he campaigns without a teleprompter.
$30 to a blue collar worker = pander
$1000 to an affluent professional = stimulus
Thank you Mommy for making all the bad monsters go away. Can I have a snack now?
Clinton calling to break up OPEC--pandering!
Obama calling for Oil Independence--good politics!
Its so easy when you decide to become a hack!
Most of the commentors here who are blathering about the price of oil and blaming it on environmentalists, oil companies, OPEC, Israel, deficit induced devaluation of the dollar, speculators, etc. are forgetting one of the prime influences, namely the increase in demand in China and India due to the rapidly increasing size of their middle classes and the subsequent demand for private automobile ownership. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The latent demand in those countries, who together have 1/3 of the worlds population, is phenomenal. In fact, there is no way that conventional oil supplies could even begin to meet that latent demand. In fact, conventional world oil supplies are hard put to meet the current demand.
The fact is that there is more likelihood of a war between the West and China breaking out over access to Middle East oil then there is over Taiwan.
HRC: 35 years of experience throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
"The fact is that there is more likelihood of a war between the West and China breaking out over access to Middle East oil then there is over Taiwan."
Thats why the Chinese investment in pipelines out of CAsia, and SCO's courting Iran and Pak to join.
We control the shipping lanes. That won't mean so much after the pipes are laid, and if Iran and Pak join the SCO. Clinton knows this. She's smarter than all'y'all.
"The fact is that there is more likelihood of a war between the West and China breaking out over access to Middle East oil then there is over Taiwan."
Thats why the Chinese investment in pipelines out of CAsia, and SCO's courting Iran and Pak to join.
We control the shipping lanes. That won't mean so much after the pipes are laid, and if Iran and Pak join the SCO. Clinton knows this. She's smarter than all'y'all.
"The fact is that there is more likelihood of a war between the West and China breaking out over access to Middle East oil then there is over Taiwan."
Not ME oil, CAsia oil. Thats why the Chinese investment in pipelines out of CAsia, and SCO's courting Iran and Pak to join.
We control the shipping lanes. That won't mean so much or be as true after the pipes are laid, and if Iran and Pak join the SCO. Clinton knows this. She's smarter than all y'all.
(LarryM, you disgrace all Americans. Please be quiet.)
Hopefully the folks in Charlotte N.C. will read their morning newspaper
Hillary Claus and the Easter Bunny
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
I remember when Georgie Boy was going to "jawbone" OPEC into lowering prices/raising production. Lookie how well a Texas oilman did at working OPEC over. Of course OPEC is the big boogeyman for stupid Americans who think that they have some sort of manifest destiny over foreign oil. Of course if the Saudis told them they needed to start cutting down forests quicker to bring down the price of lumber so they could continue to build cheap housing, these stupid Americans would be pissed. And in the long run would it really affect prices?
Maybe when she's Prez Hillary can finally get to work on that long-delayed law to make pi equal to 3.
wwz,
All - well, most - Americans disgrace the human race. So fuck you.
Anyone think there's a realistic chance that Hilary might make a run as a 3rd party candidate? She can't win the Democratic nomination at this point, but she's shown enough strength vs. Obama among certain demographics, and McCain is weak and mistake-prone enough, that she might be able to convince herself and her die-hards that she really has a shot at running outside the party. If she keeps running to the right this way she might realistically have a shot at taking some of McCain's war hawk support away - the Weekly Standard already seems to be getting a crush on her. Hilary could well end up being a Lieberman on a national scale. In fact, if she could convince Lieberman to be her VP she would have the media eating out of her hand.
Just to make it entirely clear, wwz, I view contempt and criticism from human trash such as yourself as a badge of honor.
You're right that this is a joke move by Hillary. However, "all indications" are not that everyone is producing as much as they can. They're producing what they see as the optimal level in terms of their profits and the political situation. Which is what they always do.
I remember when Georgie Boy was going to "jawbone" OPEC into lowering prices/raising production. Lookie how well a Texas oilman did at working OPEC over.
As Homer Simpson once said: "Oh, sure, everything looks bad if you remember it." (This will one day be the motto of the current administration).
LarryM, wwz got is slightly wrong. You don't disgrace Americans, you disgrace adults.
I'm talking specifically about this habit of yours of wishing death on political opponents. Seriously, it's sort of funny the first couple of times but after that it it makes you sound like you're about thirteen years old. How about trying a more grown-up mode of conversation.
Ryan,
I don't wish death on mere political opponents. I wish death on war criminals and monsters. Is it juvenile to wish death, on say, Bin Laden? Most people would say no. Yes, I really, really consider McCain, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, etc., worse than Bin Laden. Much, much worse. And when I suggest war crimes trials and execution for our leaders, I'm not just being petulant, nor am I exaggerating for effect. The Nuremberg defendants were found guilty of three classes of crimes - the crime of aggressive warfare, crimes in the conduct of war (torture, etc.), and crimes against humanity (the death camps). Our leaders, Hillary included, are guilty of the first two. I don't think that their failure to engage in crimes against humanity should be considered much of a mitigating factor under the circumstances.
You may question my judgment for believing those things, I guess, though obviously I'm comfortable with those conclusions, but not my maturity. Unless you want to question the maturity of most Americans, who would love to see monsters like Bin laden dead, and who were perfectly fine with the war crimes tribunals and executions after the second world war.
All - well, most - Americans disgrace the human race. So fuck you.
Posted by LarryM | May 6, 2008 9:43 AM
Michelle Obama ... is that you?
LarryM, You told someone upthread to make out with a circular saw blade. So expressing support for Clinton is now a crime warranting death?
I know from experience with you that there's no real point in trying to suggest culpability distinctions between Clinton and Bin Laden or the Nuremberg defendants, so I won't bother. If Obama becomes President, and doesn't end the war and close Gitmo on his first day in office, does he join your roll call of war criminals who deserve death? By your criteria, who among our political leaders *isn't* a war criminal deserving death, and why? It all seems fairly arbitrary.
Michelle Obama ... is that you?
Hey man, I don't hide my feelings about what America has become. Michele Obama, Wright, Chomsky - I think they all are not nearly critical enough of the United States. And I'm certainly not one of those non-interventionists who believe that we are imperialists because those nasty corporations have tricked the American people into supporting empire. No, we are imperialists, at heart, because the average American (wrongly) believes that maintenance of his or her comfortable life style requires the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and thinks that doing so is just fine. I mean, better 100 dead Iraqi children than forgoing a trip to the mall in your gas guzzler, right?
And that's really the lens to view my comments through. I don't get that angry about most political issues. Heck, I can even find common ground with people like Daniel Larison, who would like us to return to pre-enlightenment values (a position that I do not, to say the least, endorse).
But when you are living in a polity as sick as this one, extreme anger is not only acceptable, it is the only appropriate response.
If Obama becomes President, and doesn't end the war and close Gitmo on his first day in office, does he join your roll call of war criminals who deserve death? By your criteria, who among our political leaders *isn't* a war criminal deserving death, and why?
Last question first - really they are almost all war criminals, but there are different degrees of guilt (we didn't hang all the Nuremberg defendants, after all). But I'm pretty comfortable putting Hillary, who, among other things, voted for aggressive war against Iraq, and has consistently been one of the biggest hawks in the Senate, near the top of the list of the most culpable.
As for Obama, unwinding this mess isn't something that anyone can do overnight. And, as much as I oppose our continued presence in Iraq, the damage has (mostly) been done. The biggest crime there was the initial invasion (and the atrocities flowing from that).
What would it take for me to condemn president Obama as a war criminal? Well, let's see. Obviously any new aggression. Continuation of the torture regime. Those are a start.
Gitmo? Obviously no one can close it on day one. If he doesn't take steps to close it down in his first year, I'd criticize him vociferously, but that wouldn't be a war crime. If he added new prisoners to Gitmo, sure, that would be a war crime and I'd call for his trial and execution also. But I don't think he will.
Look, Obama is a flawed vessel, and at some level he, too, is complicitous in at least some of our crimes. But, as I said in a response to one of your earlier posts, I'm not an absolutist, and an Obama presidency would, most likely, at least reduce the level of our criminality. Certainly compared to The Monster or The Madman, each of whom would be worse than Bush in that regard.
Okey-doke. I have to say you're among the most absolutist of the non-absolutists I've run across! And I don't think I buy your criteria, but at least you have some. Fair enough.
Hillary seems to be pandering to people still nursing grudges from the 70's - Nuke Iran! Smash OPEC! I suppose some have grown up marinated in these grudges even if they are not old enough to have gone through the offenses as adults. But there are few things more dangerous than opening old wounds - even Bush left this stuff alone. The Clintons people have been seeing for the past few months are the cynical betrayers of the party I always saw, but the lunatic Hillary of the past few weeks is new even to me.
After all, with prices this high how could you afford not to pump as much oil as you could?
Is that a serious question? Then here's a serious answer: the higher the price, the less you have to pump. The less you pump, the higher the price. The higher the price, the less you have to pump. And so on.
The Saudis and Kuwaitis would be crazy to pump at maximum possible levels. What better investment than keeping oil in the ground?
Ed Marshall:
Bill's library took millions from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE but I'm *positive* Hillary is gonna be hell on OPEC. She's gonna be hell on those folks.
Yeah, like she's going to bite the hand that fees her. I believe one of the many reasons for the toppling of Saddam, besides that he was a major dick, is that it was knight's move against OPEC and Saudi Arabia.
Iraq will sell oil at market price and weaken OPEC's hand. As far as oil prices today go, part of it is the cheap dollar and no investment in new refineries, b/c of environmental regulations. As I understand it.
As far as American people being stupid, Al Gore said today again on the radio that a large percentage of Americans believe Saddam planned 9/11. It seems to me that the mainstream media - even the confused FOX news channel - did a relatively good job explaining that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. So if what Gore says is true, it really is Idiocracy. Are these the people voting for Hillary?
"He's an "economist" and he talks like a fag."
SLC,
As I pointed out about demand from China and India couldn't have doubled in one year, so that demand isn't sufficient to explain why oil prices have doubled. I gave some other reasons above.
Anywho, I'm glad I bought a couple of oil stocks last year (BPT and EGY). Wish I had bought more.
Fred cracks me up, a rather extreme example of the Republican who is big supporter of capitalism and free markets but doesn't understand the first thing about them.
Fred, you don't need a doubling of demand to have a doubling of prices. Especially for commodities where demand is highly inelastic in the short to medium term (and oil is the textbook example of such a commodity); a small increase in demand can have a disproportionately large effect on prices.
Mind you, I do think that other factors are also at work, but it's pretty clear that the driving factor for higher oil prices is static supply versus increasing demand.
"Fred, you don't need a doubling of demand to have a doubling of prices."
Obviously not, LarryM, because we've had a doubling of prices without a doubling of demand.
"Especially for commodities where demand is highly inelastic in the short to medium term (and oil is the textbook example of such a commodity); a small increase in demand can have a disproportionately large effect on prices."
Disproportionate, sure. But according to International Energy Agency estimates, global oil demand is up less than 2% year-over-year. That ~2% increase in demand isn't by itself responsible for the 100% increase in the price of oil over the same time frame. Part of the increase is due to the other factors I mentioned above.
"it's pretty clear that the driving factor for higher oil prices is static supply versus increasing demand."
The supply isn't static (the IEA shows supplies increasing this year).
Every sane analysis of oil and gas price shows pretty much the same thing: the initial increase three years ago was due largely to supply and demand factors (yes, that includes China and India), combined with a "security premium" owed to American involvement in the Middle East and some lesser troubles around the world. The current increase however is due almost wholly to speculation invading the commodities markets now that real estate has tanked and ultra low interest rates are once again tempting big money to seek quick and dirty rewards (see: Housing bubble).
Re: No, we are imperialists, at heart, because the average American (wrongly) believes that maintenance of his or her comfortable life style requires the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents
Oh what bullshit! Do you actually live in the US or are you somewhere else and responding to a crude stereotype every bit as fallacious as a minstrel show? The average American is a mind-your-own-business isolationist. He does not approve of imperial ventures; he thinks his country is better off worrying about its own affairs and spending its money at home not abroad. Yes, the average American will happily seek revenge, even very nasty and disproportionate revenge, for wrongs done his country, but revenge taken, he wants the troops home and life back to normalcy. Hence the initial popularity of the war in the Middle East, and its subsequent crash and burn (in public opinion). And one thing this was not: a war to sustain our way of life. That needs no such effort as minding our own business would do the trick nicely for that (see: Sweden, Ireland, Japan and a host of other countries that have high standards of living and no foreign inetrventions). Indeed, the Iraq War has damaged the American economy-- it's impossible to argue otherwise.
Matthew. Wake up. Major producers in OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia, are deliberately sequestering their oil. Leaving it in the ground.
Why? Two reasons, mainly. First, they are saving it for themselves. This is one of the chief reasons for flat production numbers in the face of rising demand: the Saudis, and other producers, increasingly, are saving their oil for their own use in the future.
Second, the big producers know that $120/barrel oil is just a prelude. In five years, you'll be wishing oil was so cheap. Bank on it.
The producers know this. It'll all be perfectly safe in the ground, where they can use it themselves, or sell it for 1000 bucks a barrel.
LarryM,
You go girl. The Democratic Party should have lots more members like you.
In the interests of comity and reconciliation:
Hillary,
You fucking evil monster, I hope you get a massive stroke and die tonight. Failing that, please publicly commit suicide tomorrow. In either event, burn in hell for all eternity, you sick, disgusting lying piece of slime.
Cordially,
The voters
Posted by LarryM | May 5, 2008 10:53 PM