Inflation up, or as the NYT puts it "Consumer Prices Surge 1.1% in June." This leads me to once again wonder whether we haven't been seeing a surge of "surges" ever since Bush announce the surge back in early 2007. My sense is that people didn't used to use that word very much, but now it's everywhere.
« Shipping Down to Austin | Main | Everything is Good News for McCain »
A Surge of "Surges"
16 Jul 2008 10:24 am
Comments (23)
I wonder if you would also see a mini-surge of surges during the heyday of the ill-fated X-treme soft drink Surge.
Also, I imagine there may have been a surge of Serges in France in early 1970's.
No wonder inflation is surging. That's what the Democratic Congress has achieved since taking over power in aught-six.
Bush's surge, in contrast, is officially over as of today according to this morning's AP wire.
The Republicans, of course, partly share the blame for converting foods to fuels, spiking prices in both, by executive fiat. Too many also went along with the eco-freak legislation that made gasoline refining more expensive.
But these were pet Democratic projects. And the con artistry of Nan Pelosi is stupendous in face of the high fuel prices.
She claims there's no oil to be pumped on the outer shelf. Prove it, Nan! Open the territory up to exploration licenses and demonstrate that no one can find oil there!
Sheesh, the GOP has disgusted me for all of its excesses in trying to ape the Democrats and all their Big Gummit handouts to all comers.
And now we're all getting the full gale-force blast of the Democrats' taxing and spending "Neosocialism with an Inhuman Face." Nice work, Repubs, on losing your way and forfeiting the game.
In answer to your question a few posts down about Obama not opening his Christmas gifts yet: I suspect he wants to use them for a surge that peaks closer to November.
Welcome to modern branding theory, which rests on the idea that the overwhelming volume of broadcast communication in modern culture creates a resistance to communication -- a sort of collective Fortress Attention -- which requires massive assault by allied forces, riffing off common themes.
Thus, we had the 2000s: Year 2000 and 2000 too many others. and, X's: Generation X, X-Box, OSX, Windows XP, etc. And, then the 360s: X-Box 360, Anderson Cooper 360, etc.
You might want to consider establishing an avatar as "Y7". Seven is the new X
Do you remember 'so-called' era? So-called because of the constant use of the term 'so-called'.
As I was reading some financial blogs today, it occurred to me that the reason I was reading them was because they put whatever financial data has been released in the proper context. For example, for seasonal data, the logical context is to report how this number compared to *last years* number rather than last months. I can't seem to count on getting that from those shabby outlets like CNN, etc.
And it occurred to me that that is the reason I read all my blogs - context.
Surge!
No wonder inflation is surging. That's what the Democratic Congress has achieved since taking over power in aught-six.
BWAHAHAHA! Bush and the GOP create some of the most irresponsible economic policies ever seen, and it's the Dems fault because of ethanol? BWAHAHAHA! Oh, man. You right-wingnuts really are delusional.
Here's a few things that maybe, just maybe, are part of the issue with today's economy:
- Artificially low interest rates for an unprecedented length of time created a housing bubble.
- Active suppression by OCC of investigations of predatory lenders, increasing the housing bubble.
- Zippo regulatory oversight by OTS.
- Zero down FHA loans.
- Tax cuts and increased spending that destroyed the dollar.
- Allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on more risk. Bailout will have the gov't take on bad debt from a private company and will further suppress the dollar.
- A war of choice, poorly executed, killing our soldiers, draining our treasury, and in the process further suppressing the dollar.
I'm sure I've missed a bunch.
Too many also went along with the eco-freak legislation that made gasoline refining more expensive.
Do you really believe that gas prices went sky high because of refinery costs? If so, why is diesel (less refining) so high? IT'S BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF CRUDE OIL.
SHEESH! If by now you can't even figure out how to watch the price of a barrel of oil, you should probably just back away from the Internet.
She claims there's no oil to be pumped on the outer shelf. Prove it, Nan! Open the territory up to exploration licenses and demonstrate that no one can find oil there!
There are an estimate 34 billion barrels in already leased reserves that are not being exploited. There are millions of acres of land already leased for oil exploration. Explain how, if we find the estimated 8 billion more barrels elsewhere offshore, that this will somehow help oil prices when industry is incapable of exploiting these other known sources. DUUUUUUHHH!
Oh, that's right. It will plummet prices because it will be "psychological". That's what McBush are trying to tell us.
Sheesh, the GOP has disgusted me for all of its excesses in trying to ape the Democrats and all their Big Gummit handouts to all comers.
Well at least you recognize that GOP policy for the past several decades has been the prime creator of U.S. debt. That's a start.
Wasn't Serge the guy that offered to make Axel an espresso with a lemon twist in Beverly Hills Cop?
Just like the cursed term "flip-flopping"...
Wasn't Serge the guy that offered to make Axel an espresso with a lemon twist in Beverly Hills Cop?
Explain how, if we find the estimated 8 billion more barrels elsewhere offshore, that this will somehow help oil prices when industry is incapable of exploiting these other known sources.
Well, at least you're willing to make a concession that Nan won't: That there are significant estimated reserves out there.
And the reason not to explore and drill there was what now? So as to keep down Kingdom Plantae by cutting back on the CO2 they need to live, aka grow? Or what?
Meanwhile, drivers have to choose whether they can afford to eat the foods that drivers need for the commute. Thanks, Dems, for demonstrating sheer lunacy.
"Oh, you're starving to death? Well, we can't let you eat today or provide for tomorrow, 'cause that'll destroy our property values or cause the Great Galactic Gobblin to get mad and kill us all in an AGW inferno.
"Come to think of it, you'd all be better off dead."
"And the reason not to explore and drill there was what now?"
Let me count the ways:
Because it won't produce anything at all for roughly 10 years.
Because even when it does, studies have shown it helps at most by 10 cents a gallon (and this is 10 years down the road).
Because it introduces large environmental hazards (see the 124 oil spills in Katrina/Rita) for a highly marginal benefit.
Because there's no guarantee the oil companies will actually drill at all - see the massive amounts of offshore patents they *already* hold and aren't doing a thing with, because they're just saving it for when oil is worth even more than it is now, for higher profits.
Because it just delays for a couple years the overwhelmingly obvious need to transition from an oil addiction to alternative energy sources, electric cars, and mass transit.
But hey, nothing like trotting out the plight of the poor every few years as a classic argument from the party of capital gains tax cuts, right?
Google to the rescue: http://www.google.com/trends?q=surge
When I searched it the little "D" marked a story from CBS News on 11 September 2007 titled "The Surge Surge".
Well, at least you're willing to make a concession that Nan won't: That there are significant estimated reserves out there.
Concession? I guess that's what the right-wingnutosphere calls "facts". The figures are there in black and white, so I see no concession. The issue concerns it's significance.
And the reason not to explore and drill there was what now?
Read my post above again. We already have 34 billion barrels of offshore oil in leases that sit unexploited. Why? The equipment needed to get to this oil DOES NOT EXIST. Do you understand that? I'll repeat it. The equipment needed to get to this oil DOES NOT EXIST! To keep it simple, opening yet more areas to drill DOES NOTHING. We can't even exploit what's leased NOW. Am I getting through?
We could make the decision to open up the coasts years from now for exploration and the result would be the same. Actually, with technology improvements, the exploration might be even more efficient. It's all meaningless until industry can actually drill.
This entire issue is a fig leaf for the failure of GOP energy and fiscal policy.
I think I've answered your question pretty fully ... twice. Of course, I noticed you dodged my question. Explain to me how opening up new leases will help our situation when industry is incapable of exploiting the current leases.
Unless I'm mistaken, before Gulf War I the expression "a line in the sand" was virtually unheard of. It was always "a line in the dirt." Now you pretty much never hear the original expression; it's always "sand." Wars apparently have a strong capacity to shape language. Not surprising really.
We already have 34 billion barrels of offshore oil in leases that sit unexploited. Why? The equipment needed to get to this oil DOES NOT EXIST. Do you understand that? I'll repeat it. The equipment needed to get to this oil DOES NOT EXIST! To keep it simple, opening yet more areas to drill DOES NOTHING. We can't even exploit what's leased NOW.
Whoa, cowboy. Let's keep the cranial explosiveness levels down.
Wonder who's keeping construction on all that plant down? Probably NIMBY ninnies. And with all those Motor City workers getting laid off, it seems to be a crying shame. Unless, of course, you're in a party that wants to enhance voter malaise because you think that'll reap partisan gain in November...
We could make the decision to open up the coasts years from now for exploration and the result would be the same. Actually, with technology improvements, the exploration might be even more efficient. It's all meaningless until industry can actually drill.
Excellent point. There's thus no reason not to open up that vast acreage to exploration and potential future drilling because there won't be any drilling anyway. There's absolutely nothing your side has to fear.
Explain to me how opening up new leases will help our situation when industry is incapable of exploiting the current leases.
Dunno. But it would be more sensible to try something than to make sure nothing is tried at all. Unless, of course, you just aim to play chicken with the nation's economy and hope voters won't wise up before you've conned your way through an election.
Whoa, cowboy. Let's keep the cranial explosiveness levels down.
Sometimes you have to yell to get through the density.
Wonder who's keeping construction on all that plant down? Probably NIMBY ninnies.
Aaaaah. An opinion based upon ... nothing. "Probably NIMBY", with no evidence. As I suspected.
But it would be more sensible to try something than to make sure nothing is tried at all.
Yep. Advocation of doing "something" ... anything. It doesn't even have to make sense, just do ... "something".
Guess what. It is NOT more sensible to do something that makes no sense. And for a real change, how about putting political capital and effort into doing something that DOES make sense? For example, we could do more and quicker by raising the CAFE standards.
Pretty pathetic, MarkG. You are classic neo-conservative. You know what you know in advance, and those inconvenient things called "facts" don't really impact your opinion.
Really, isn't it a surge of "surge"s? It's the singular, not the plural, that's been doing the surging...
Isn't it a surge of "surge"s? It's the singular, not the plural, that's been doing the surging...
But maybe the Atlantic's guidelines about quotation marks don't allow for maximal use/mention persnickittiness...
It is NOT more sensible to do something that makes no sense.
If you say so, Hoss.
Still, it appears to me that there's no harm in testing the hypothesis that it makes no sense.
Popper once said we were scientific creatures as humans -- always positing hypotheses and testing them. Guess we're now putting Popper's theory to the test...
Have a day. =)
Getting oil discoveries to the surface is getting more problematic all the time. A large new find sits off-shore of Brazil, but the number of drilling platforms and skilled roughnecks available is a bottleneck. The oil could just languish untapped for years.
Sad fact: the easy oil has all been drilled and burned.
Andy, I think you need an apostrophe after the closing quote marks.
Anyhow, Matt might be right about this, but I have the notion that even before "Teh Surge," the word was commonly used in precisely this context -- significant jumps in prices or other economic measures.
Comments closed July 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Would that make the original Bush surge the "Mother of all surges"?
Posted by john m | July 16, 2008 10:43 AM