View Poll Results: The price of gas under President McCain would have been

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • $1.86

    2 3.92%
  • $2.00

    0 0%
  • $2.50

    0 0%
  • $3.00

    2 3.92%
  • About the same

    47 92.16%
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

  1. #71
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    U.S.
    Last Seen
    06-17-12 @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    415

    Re: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

    Other

    Poll is over-speculative.

  2. #72
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    But that's just it, though. Supply and distribution and demand for using the commodity do not account for the high prices right now. It's because of the artificial demand created by the investors.

    It works the same way that the mortgage mess worked. Values get grossly inflated entirely due to the demand caused investors applying a short-term, profit-right-now investment mentality on an investment that requires a long term mentality. This creates a bubble. It's happened before with Oil (2008 was caused by an oil bubble and it popped, which is what caused prices to crash back down). It'll pop again because the reality of the situation doesn't dictate these prices. The futures look high because of the speculation, not because of supply and demand issue.

    Since it's a commodity, though, it's possible to invest in such a way that even if you are one of the last buyers before the pop, it only affects the insane profits you've enjoyed throughout the buildup process and doesn't actually cause you to lose. The only people who lose in the mix are people who pay these investors for the honor of getting ****ed by their investments (i.e. the people who buy gas at $4 + per gallon).

    The system as it exists only benefits the parasitic investors in the end because over the long haul, the suppliers break even on the bargain (they still have to supply and distribute after the bubble bursts so when it all averages out, they would end up in the exact same place if the parasitic investment practices weren't employed, while most of the money changing hands on the investment market doesn't even involve them).
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Not so fast Tuck. Every part of the chain is kinked up right now, drilling is indeed up in some areas but down in others, refining is the biggest problem because we are in a facility shrinkage currently which means that it's harder to keep up with peak demand at the pump, as well the tax per gallon is ridiculous, for every dollar spent per gallon the governmnet makes around forty cents to the oil producers eight, and of course the station also makes around eight cents as well. Speculators do one thing, look at reports meaning they see what's being produced at current value, changes, and how much can get to market at current refining capacity they then act long or short accordingly.

    The mortgage crisis was a multi-faceted problem as well. Speculators got sold a horrendous investment that they kept passing along the line until people couldn't take bad debts off other's hands anymore. The federal got involved years ago forcing more high risk mortgages that the financial managers figured out how to make a buck off of. It wasn't the selling that made the mortgages a toxic asset rather complete dishonesty about the return. Oil speculators aren't buying debt, they are buying shares of available production. Buying a bad loan with paper returns is not the same thing as buying something that will have value(or won't if you guess wrong).

    Not all speculators are wealthy people. In fact many people have commodities in their retirement portfolios. And I still assert that there is more damage from outside(government regulation) interference than any internal damage(I'm not letting the industry off the hook).

    People react to the conditions present. Predatory would be intentionally creating a sellers market by cutting the supply short or forcing less supply on the demand end through dishonest means.
    I've been thinking on this Tuck and I'll amend a little. Mainly speculators are an indicator but I would be irresponsible in not completely analyzing their effect and there is something that I missed. Speculators are watched closely by those who purchase, supply, and consider investing as well so if they are making moves heavily in the short or long direction there is a price pressure that comes from the market's emotional reaction, too much activity can literally change the psyche of the market creating a false dynamic which can change the price, the overall effect can range from minimal to grand dependent on the factors at the time. I would have to say we both can be correct under very specific market conditions at the time.

    This said McCain is not as "big government" minded as Obama but not enough that he would have made regulation more efficient and I think we would still be somewhere in the price range we see now. I think the real market price is much lower than the actual market price but until all factors are addressed this will not change.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #73
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    ...the oil producers eight...
    There's the important bit. If it really was a supply issue, the oil producers would be seeing the increased profits. Nobody else. But it's investors seeing all of the profits on the increased prices, not producers.

    That's supports my claim.

    The mortgage crisis was a multi-faceted problem as well. Speculators got sold a horrendous investment that they kept passing along the line until people couldn't take bad debts off other's hands anymore. The federal got involved years ago forcing more high risk mortgages that the financial managers figured out how to make a buck off of. It wasn't the selling that made the mortgages a toxic asset rather complete dishonesty about the return. Oil speculators aren't buying debt, they are buying shares of available production. Buying a bad loan with paper returns is not the same thing as buying something that will have value(or won't if you guess wrong).

    The speculators knew these were bad investments when they purchased them. They also knew that they could be passed along at a profit or that people would simply refi to avoid foreclosure. You put too much blame on the Feds, BTW. The federal government had nothing to do with the vast majority of the subprime and alt-A loans. They were involved in the very minimal FHA side of things (a drop in the bucket in the whole mortgage mess).

    Subprime and alt-A were the ****ty loans that allowed people to refi in order to avoid foreclosure and get away with NINA (no income, no asset), respectively. These loans were entirely driven by investors. 100%. Nothing at all to do with the Federal government. Option ARMs (which are the stereotypical 'toxic loan')? Investor driven.

    115% LTV seconds? Investor driven.

    Whenever someone says that the government "forced" lenders to make stupid loans to ****ty borrowers, the first thing I think is that they aren't really all that aware of what went on during the mortgage mess. The worst of the worst products were things that investors dreamed up. These investors applied short term thinking to long term investments. This is what happened. The government is not the primary source of blame, except in the sense that they took away the barriers that were in place that prevent these simple-minded short-sighted morons from doing what they did.

    The first rule of life is that people who make a lot of money are just as dumb, and are often far dumber, than those who don't. The only real difference is, when poor people are stupid, the effects are localized and other poor people tend to be the only ones affected. When rich people are stupid, it's global and the effects of the stupidity are inversely proportional to income.

    Every major man-made disaster in history has been a result of rich people being stupid. And in every instance, rich people were the least affected by their stupidity. Sure, they were affected a little bit, but people who weren't rich ended up in far worse shape.

    I only mention the above because that fact of life must be one's primary premise when approaching issues like this. When one realizes that almost everything that can be discussed involves stupid, short-sighted, selfish morons making stupid, selfish, short-sighted decisions based in their stupid, selfish, short-sighted approach to life, one can realize that nothing exists which cannot


    Not all speculators are wealthy people. In fact many people have commodities in their retirement portfolios. And I still assert that there is more damage from outside(government regulation) interference than any internal damage(I'm not letting the industry off the hook).
    It you added up all of the non-wealthy speculators, they probably have less money in the pool that the wealthiest one does. If you averaged everything out, they are probably closer to breaking even on their investment than they are to profiting (i.e. If you include the cost of commodities speculation which is passed on directly to the consumer).

    People react to the conditions present. Predatory would be intentionally creating a sellers market by cutting the supply short or forcing less supply on the demand end through dishonest means.
    But that's just it, though, they are the primary condition present that they are reacting to.

    It's just as predatory to create false demand for a commodity, and when the investment structure is already a parasitic one by it's very nature (which is my stance about all commodities trading), creating false demand makes it even worse, IMO. (False demand being defined as demand that is completely unrelated to consumption).

    Just because something is parasitic and predatory, though, doesn't mean it's illegal. Lawmakers are just as short-sighted, selfish and stupid as the rest of the population.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #74
    Sage
    Dezaad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Seen
    06-28-15 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    5,058
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

    I said 1.86. This would be due to the fact that he would have allowed our economy to tank and there would, as a result, be far less demand.
    You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.

  5. #75
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: If McCain had won in '08, gas would cost...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    There's the important bit. If it really was a supply issue, the oil producers would be seeing the increased profits. Nobody else. But it's investors seeing all of the profits on the increased prices, not producers.

    That's supports my claim.
    Actually, the speculators make their money before the first drop goes into your car, company investors make a portion of the eight cents. The station owner makes eight cents, the government makes all forty cents. The government literally did nothing to gain the largest margin, fire the idiots who still support a per gallon tax and reduce it to the industry standard margin and that's 32 cents a gallon off right there.




    The speculators knew these were bad investments when they purchased them. They also knew that they could be passed along at a profit or that people would simply refi to avoid foreclosure. You put too much blame on the Feds, BTW. The federal government had nothing to do with the vast majority of the subprime and alt-A loans. They were involved in the very minimal FHA side of things (a drop in the bucket in the whole mortgage mess).

    Subprime and alt-A were the ****ty loans that allowed people to refi in order to avoid foreclosure and get away with NINA (no income, no asset), respectively. These loans were entirely driven by investors. 100%. Nothing at all to do with the Federal government. Option ARMs (which are the stereotypical 'toxic loan')? Investor driven.
    None of this existed until after the CRA was passed by Carter and then altered in the nineties by the Janet Reno justice department, before then banks were requiring a hefty down payment and strict lending criteria. We are finally getting back to that after thirty years.....kind of.
    115% LTV seconds? Investor driven.
    Yes, after they figured out how to make the numbers work to bring in investors.

    Whenever someone says that the government "forced" lenders to make stupid loans to ****ty borrowers, the first thing I think is that they aren't really all that aware of what went on during the mortgage mess. The worst of the worst products were things that investors dreamed up. These investors applied short term thinking to long term investments. This is what happened. The government is not the primary source of blame, except in the sense that they took away the barriers that were in place that prevent these simple-minded short-sighted morons from doing what they did.
    Again, they had to find a solution to a government induced problem. Follow the logic, the shakedowns started in the early nineties and sub-primes didn't start to take off until probably about two to three years later.

    The first rule of life is that people who make a lot of money are just as dumb, and are often far dumber, than those who don't. The only real difference is, when poor people are stupid, the effects are localized and other poor people tend to be the only ones affected. When rich people are stupid, it's global and the effects of the stupidity are inversely proportional to income.
    Look at it this way, no matter what you do there are so many stupid financial and other government regulations that there is no way to follow one without violating another. When you have a system like that then yes the wealthy making bad decisions will have a larger effect.
    Every major man-made disaster in history has been a result of rich people being stupid. And in every instance, rich people were the least affected by their stupidity. Sure, they were affected a little bit, but people who weren't rich ended up in far worse shape.
    Not true Tuck. The "Great Depression" has been proven to be prolongued due to government interference after the market collapse, other depressions happened in U.S. history but were not as severe, those did not recieve a single government nod. Half of the "man made" disasters I've seen had goverenment overregulation all over it.....such as Amtrack for one example.
    I only mention the above because that fact of life must be one's primary premise when approaching issues like this. When one realizes that almost everything that can be discussed involves stupid, short-sighted, selfish morons making stupid, selfish, short-sighted decisions based in their stupid, selfish, short-sighted approach to life, one can realize that nothing exists which cannot
    I'm not going to blame the rich, rather I'll blame the government rich. Seriously all one has to do is look at a government ruling and you'll see the inevitable skewed numbers.

    It you added up all of the non-wealthy speculators, they probably have less money in the pool that the wealthiest one does. If you averaged everything out, they are probably closer to breaking even on their investment than they are to profiting (i.e. If you include the cost of commodities speculation which is passed on directly to the consumer).
    Of course, people with less to lose don't play as much, meaning they won't make as much and are happy to break even. This does not change the fact that they are looking to the weatlhier investors as an indicator.


    But that's just it, though, they are the primary condition present that they are reacting to.
    And those large speculators are reacting to data. You are making a false coorelation to results of the indicator tied to the indicator. This is usually not the case but "can" happen.

    It's just as predatory to create false demand for a commodity, and when the investment structure is already a parasitic one by it's very nature (which is my stance about all commodities trading), creating false demand makes it even worse, IMO. (False demand being defined as demand that is completely unrelated to consumption).

    Just because something is parasitic and predatory, though, doesn't mean it's illegal. Lawmakers are just as short-sighted, selfish and stupid as the rest of the population.
    First off, there is nothing predatory about commodities trading it's just done differently for the reasons of different needs.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •