All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.
10/17/2012 9:41 AM
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 9:18:00 AM (view original):
According to oilprice.com:

"The shortfall in oil production relative to what would  have been expected based on the 1983-2005 growth pattern amounted to 4.7 million barrels in 2011. This is far more than any country claims as spare capacity. This is no doubt one of the reasons why oil prices are as high they are now. These high oil prices tend to interfere with economic growth of oil importing nations".

So that last line would seem to suggest that if we were importing less, that would help a great deal. Would it not?



Ok, you've got a couple of different things going on there.  

First, 4.7 million barrels of oil is less than one day of US production.  Is this opinion piece claiming that a projected US annual production shortfall of less than .3% is responsible for high oil prices?

Second, the piece also implies that we would be in better shape if we imported less.  If that were the case, why do we export some of our oil and gasoline?

Again, it's a global commodity.  You really want to lower the prices at the pump right now?  Cut gas taxes.  Of course that might increase demand and erase the price cut.
10/17/2012 9:44 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 10/17/2012 9:32:00 AM (view original):
Obama might be better served not trying to make predictions on the outcomes of Romney's proposed policies seeing how far off he was in predicting the outcomes of his own policies over the past four years.
I was thoroughly disappointed in both candidates' continual retreat to practiced talking points (Romney appeared to do so a bit more, but in most cases neither offered very straight forward answers to the actual questions asked them).

As well as their continual bashing the other guy rather than defending or laying out their own vision or plan (Obama more so than Romney, as several times Romney laid out specifics on how he'd do things differently and why).
10/17/2012 9:57 AM
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by mchalesarmy on 10/17/2012 9:18:00 AM (view original):
According to oilprice.com:

"The shortfall in oil production relative to what would  have been expected based on the 1983-2005 growth pattern amounted to 4.7 million barrels in 2011. This is far more than any country claims as spare capacity. This is no doubt one of the reasons why oil prices are as high they are now. These high oil prices tend to interfere with economic growth of oil importing nations".

So that last line would seem to suggest that if we were importing less, that would help a great deal. Would it not?



Ok, you've got a couple of different things going on there.  

First, 4.7 million barrels of oil is less than one day of US production.  Is this opinion piece claiming that a projected US annual production shortfall of less than .3% is responsible for high oil prices?

Second, the piece also implies that we would be in better shape if we imported less.  If that were the case, why do we export some of our oil and gasoline?

Again, it's a global commodity.  You really want to lower the prices at the pump right now?  Cut gas taxes.  Of course that might increase demand and erase the price cut.
I don't know what they are trying to claim. I googled oil production rates by country and found that site near the top, and it seemed to suggest that importing was one of the reasons for struggling economic growth.

While there are many topics I am fairly knowledgeable about, there are plenty of others where that is not the case.
When I don't understand a particular issue I ask sincere questions, hoping for civil discussion which perhaps help others who have similar questions or misunderstandings.

I appreciate you taking the time to offer what appear to be solid answers in this area.
10/17/2012 10:18 AM
Thanks.  I just wish the candidates would be more honest about this.  But it's pretty hard to get elected by saying "yeah, gas prices will continue to go up no matter what we do."
10/17/2012 11:32 AM
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
Thanks.  I just wish the candidates would be more honest about this.  But it's pretty hard to get elected by saying "yeah, gas prices will continue to go up no matter what we do."
They won't continue to go up if our govt knows what's good for them. Push prices down and the economy will get moving at a much quicker pace again. Lower cost to produce goods + more cash for consumers to spend = good thing. The only positive about high gas prices is it makes producing and transporting goods overseas a more costly proposition.... which helps keep those jobs at home.
10/17/2012 11:37 AM
Push prices down how?  Are you suggesting the government subsidize gas?
10/17/2012 3:10 PM (edited)
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Push prices down how?  Are you suggesting the government subsidize gas?
Produce more. Gas prices can be manipulated since they are based on futures 'speculation'. Simply suggesting there will be more drilling (I.e. supply) in the future should help drive the price per barrel down before any new drilling even happens. Same thing the other way... fear of a hurricane in the gulf or a terrorist attack near a facility in the middle east drive up the price per barrel..... even if said hurricane or attack had no effect on actual oil production. A pipeline from Canada provides alternative options to buy oil from would drive down prices due to competition/competitive advantages. Also creates a lot of us jobs which is a bonus.
10/17/2012 3:39 PM
Posted by moy23 on 10/17/2012 3:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jvford on 10/17/2012 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Push prices down how?  Are you suggesting the government subsidize gas?
Produce more. Gas prices can be manipulated since they are based on futures 'speculation'. Simply suggesting there will be more drilling (I.e. supply) in the future should help drive the price per barrel down before any new drilling even happens. Same thing the other way... fear of a hurricane in the gulf or a terrorist attack near a facility in the middle east drive up the price per barrel..... even if said hurricane or attack had no effect on actual oil production. A pipeline from Canada provides alternative options to buy oil from would drive down prices due to competition/competitive advantages. Also creates a lot of us jobs which is a bonus.
Gas/oil is a global market. There is a growing demand as more countries industrialize and their population grows. Drilling more would do nothing to lower prices, it would just make the people that control the wells very rich.

From the CBO report: www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf

Even if the United States increased production and became a net exporter of oil, U.S. consumers would still be exposed to gasoline prices that rose and fell in response to disruptions around the world.

In contrast, policies that reduced the use of oil and its products would create an incentive for consumers to use less oil or make decisions that reduced their exposure to higher oil prices in the future

From the Cato Institute: www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-not-obamas-fault-crude-oil-prices-have-increased

 Since the start of 2007, U.S. production has increased by 2.1 mbd. Sure, more domestic oil creates the possibility of fewer refined imports tied to the price of Brent crude, but given that the price of Brent sets the price for crude generally, the result would be more profit for domestic crude producers rather than significantly lower gasoline prices for Americans (not that there's anything wrong with that).


10/17/2012 6:47 PM (edited)
There are 2 things that would have to be done to control the price of gas at the pump.
1.End futures trading. Having commodities of any kind being traded on the board gives traders control. Just like jvford says, the threat of a hurricane can send gas and crude oil prices up regardless if the hurricane ever happens. It is pure speculation. The first time gas at the pump went to $4 crude was skyrocketing to $150 per barrel based on speculation. Now gas is virtually the same price and crude is in the $80's and $90's. Shouldn't gas be $2.50 a gallon just based on those 2 statistics? Paper trading shouldn't be allowed on any commodity. It gives a false impression of what the true value is due to speculation. And why should speculators be allowed to control prices? That is what happens. I live in the midwest and have a small farm. Prices for my farm products, (corn and soybeans) fluctuate radically every day based on news that the speculators use when deciding to buy or sell my products on paper. They want to sell their paper and the market drops because it shows they are getting out of the market. They decide they want to buy the product on paper and the price goes up because it shows they want to get in and own some of the commodity. With the drought this year prices went up because there was "speculation" that there would be a small crop. Now that harvest is done and yields are better than "expected" prices have dropped. All this has happened without any of the actual product ever being on the market for sale. Why are they allowed to control the price that I get for my product without ever owning the actual product to begin with. That is as wrong as anything can ever be!
2.We would have to become completely energy independant and the government would have to require that all of the product must remain and be used in the US. Guess how fast that will happen?
10/17/2012 7:38 PM
Ending futures trading would be an economic catastrophe.

Do you understand why they exist? Stop getting your economic advice from the Occupy newsletter.
10/17/2012 8:10 PM
Ok, don't end futures trading. Make every product made in the world available to buy on the board via paper. If I want to buy on paper 500,000 widgits made at a factory and not have to actually own the product and 5 days later I can sell the product that I bought on paper and make the price for that product fluctuate between profit or loss for that company then I should be allowed to do so. That is what is happening when commodities that I actually produce are traded by speculators. The least they should have to do if they are going to buy the product is take delivery of it. If they are going to sell the product they should have to deliver the actual product. Paper trading should NOT exist. Period! True economic supply and demand pricing is not working when speculation on paper determines prices.
10/18/2012 1:38 AM
So I can see some logical regulations on certain paper trading in some areas.

This isnt the real problem though, Look at California!
10/18/2012 1:55 AM
The devaluation of the dollar is not helping at all either.

These are the two most important things that a government can do in that regard:
1) grow the economy.
2) shrink the debt or at the very least stop adding to it like we have the last 12 years.

10/18/2012 5:09 AM
Swamp...what was your favorite STANDING TALL moment for Willard?

A. The Wile E. Coyote moment on Libya, where Obama told Willard to "Proceed" knowing full well were he was going to go, and sure enough, Willard with the Acme Libya meme, went there.

B. Binders full of women (did that line make you hard?)

C. Answering the Immigration question by bringing up Obama's Illinois state pension.

D. Bringing up that he was for 100% of America at the very end and opening the door for Obama to get the last word in on the 47% comment with no chance for rebuttal.

10/18/2012 6:06 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 10/18/2012 5:09:00 AM (view original):
Swamp...what was your favorite STANDING TALL moment for Willard?

A. The Wile E. Coyote moment on Libya, where Obama told Willard to "Proceed" knowing full well were he was going to go, and sure enough, Willard with the Acme Libya meme, went there.

B. Binders full of women (did that line make you hard?)

C. Answering the Immigration question by bringing up Obama's Illinois state pension.

D. Bringing up that he was for 100% of America at the very end and opening the door for Obama to get the last word in on the 47% comment with no chance for rebuttal.

A) Mitt worded the question incorrectly. The President was deceitful. Even had the actual truth been that a protest got out of hand and was the source of the attack it would be correct to refer to it as "an act of terror". In no way, shape or form did Obama allege al Queda was responsible for that attack until some 2 weeks later. That's a fact. Stop trying to spin it like there isn't a problem with the way the WH handled the misinformation told to us for two weeks.

B) Again a non-issue. Why not talk about how a guy who has a history of successfully running many companies didn't have hardly any women in executive positions in nearly every case UNTIL he got into politics and something like that would matter, so he surrounded himself with many women to trumpet that for political gain? Isn't that a much more compelling argument than how Romney misspoke and failed to say what he actually meant which was "a binder full of resumes of women"?

C) Both candidates were guilty of not directly answering the question asked in most instances. Both candidates took every opportunity to steer their answer quickly to a rehearsed talking point.

D) Another case of taking a comment out of context, and exploited by Obama supporters at every instance.

I enjoy having honest discussions about the issues but when one side is acting like Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz and the other side is acting like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh I get nauseous. Be honest or butt out of the conversation.

Seriously there were actually VALID points that Obama looked good on. Why not talk about those? Using these media talking points make you look like a blind sheep of the flock of MSNBC.

I guess most people simply enjoy playing politics over actually discussing issues like adults.

of 12
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Obama loses again.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.