View Poll Results: Read Question

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, prices will fall

    5 14.71%
  • No, prices will not fall

    23 67.65%
  • Not sure

    6 17.65%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 86

Thread: Supply & Demand

  1. #31
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,473
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post

    Still posting that crap? Your entire argument from that article rests upon what Gringrich said.
    Your Star,
    See, here is Dr. Deceitful again.
    I forgot one: He habitually twists very basic facts into a pretzel, or worse. In this case worse.
    He thinks others won't read and compare... and :Gingrich: is supposed to get weak minds into a lather... Knee Jerk.
    This is Obama-like.

    I present the above quote as evidence

    You see Your Star,

    I don't recall Gingrich researching and writing a paper on the subject, having it be submitted to a leading energy journal, and have it rejected because the conclusion is known and not original.
    Compare the substance to slithering quote at the top of this post.
    Deceit and deception.

    To make it easy... the guts... posted below:
    ...the top academic energy journal, aptly named, ``The Energy Journal,'' recently rejected a study by economists Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet of Nicholls State University in Louisiana that found that higher production in the future would reduce prices today.

    The study... wasn't rejected because it lacked academic merit. It was rejected because the finding was so well known. James Smith, the impeccably credentialed editor of The Energy Journal described it this way to the unfortunate authors:

    ``Basically, your main result (the present impact of an anticipated future supply change) is already known to economists (although perhaps not to the Democratic Policy Committee). It is our policy to publish only original research that adds significantly to the body of received knowledge regarding energy markets and policy.''

    ...if you want oil prices to decline, drill.

    Start Drilling Now to Lower Oil, Gasoline Prices: Kevin Hassett - Bloomberg
    Last edited by zimmer; 06-20-10 at 10:00 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  2. #32
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Actually it is. There is insufficient additional supply to reduce demand at the rate demand and supply are growing. Therefore, your belief that additional drilling will reduce prices is nothing more then a fantasy not based in any real world situation.
    Well, to be fair, additional drilling WOULD reduce prices - if there were enough additional drilling.

    But that would require a hell of alot of drilling...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #33
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Well, to be fair, additional drilling WOULD reduce prices - if there were enough additional drilling.

    But that would require a hell of alot of drilling...
    Okay, let's take the current daily global usage, roughly 85.4 million barrels a day. At 10% compounding over the average 15 years it takes oil to get to the market from new drilling and assuming that current supply increases at 2% without new drilling, we would need to bring 270,903,242 additional barrels in capacity per day on that 15th year if we drilled now.

    That's more then a hell of alot of drilling. We're going to need Jesus the Oilman to get that kind of capacity.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #34
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Okay, let's take the current daily global usage, roughly 85.4 million barrels a day. At 10% compounding over the average 15 years it takes oil to get to the market from new drilling and assuming that current supply increases at 2% without new drilling, we would need to bring 270,903,242 additional barrels in capacity per day on that 15th year if we drilled now.

    That's more then a hell of alot of drilling. We're going to need Jesus the Oilman to get that kind of capacity.
    Pipeline from Heaven?

    Sounds like one of those religious cable TV channels...

    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #35
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Your Star,
    See, here is Dr. Deceitful again.
    I forgot one: He habitually twists very basic facts into a pretzel, or worse.
    I present the above quote as evidence
    Did you read the article?

    And you are a lying hack.

    Here's the REAL QUOTE:

    In a recent post at his influential blog, Gingrich noted that the top academic energy journal, aptly named, ``The Energy Journal,'' recently rejected a study by economists Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet of Nicholls State University in Louisiana that found that higher production in the future would reduce prices today.

    The study, Gingrich reported, wasn't rejected because it lacked academic merit. It was rejected because the finding was so well known. James Smith, the impeccably credentialed editor of The Energy Journal described it this way to the unfortunate authors:
    You deliberately omitted who said the study was rejected. You deliberately did not mention there was no link to the study. You deliberately cut and pasted to show that it wasn't Gingrich in the story.

    I don't recall Gingrich researching and writing a paper on the subject, having it be submitted to a leading energy journal, and have it rejected because the conclusion is known and not original.
    Compare the substance to slithering quote at the top of this post.
    Deceit and deception.

    .
    Yeah because you didn't read the link.

    Still not actual link to the study. Not surprising.

    Just because you don't read your links doesn't mean I won't.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 06-20-10 at 10:09 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #36
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,473
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Obvious Child,

    The capacity to read and understand the written English language eludes a great number of DP users and if you don't know what linear regression is, don't talk about economics.
    Forget about understanding variability, correlation and the like, let's talk about basic English, and understanding it.

    Gingrich did not research, write the study or submit the study rejected because the conclusion was known and not original.

    Gingrich is irrelevant.
    Meaningless.
    Not of import.
    No influence.

    What matters is the study came to a so repeated and obvious conclusion it wasn't worthy of publishing.
    .the top academic energy journal, aptly named, ``The Energy Journal,'' recently rejected a study by economists Morris Coats and Gary Pecquet of Nicholls State University in Louisiana that found that higher production in the future would reduce prices today.
    The first ****ing line too boot! Everything you need to know about who and what.

    Shall I repeat it again?
    Maybe... you're not... deceitful and deceptive? ....Hmmm (in B-flat)?

    But I see he Gingrich gets you excited.
    So much so you go blind to the facts in front of your face.

    Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich.
    Feel better now?

    How about Halliburton?
    Bush 43?
    Cheney... oh I bet that really gets you going.

    Yes. I did eliminate Gingrich... because...
    testing, testing, testing...

    Gingrich is irrelevant.
    Meaningless.
    Not of import.
    No influence.

    The study was rejected. Too common. Not original. They knew this.
    All in the quote I published.
    Amazing Grace folks!

    You just proved everything I stated about you in one thread.
    Thanks. I'll call this One-stop-shopping.
    Everything you need to know in one thread.

    Now for me... the thread is dead... the thread is dead.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 06-20-10 at 10:51 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  7. #37
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Forget about understanding variability, correlation and the like, let's talk about basic English, and understanding it.
    Okay, explain how the variability will change how an immaterial amount of oil can reduce prices.

    Tell me how 2% increase in supply can overcome 10% in increased demand. Please try. Or do your normal thing and run away. (look, you're wrong again, I'll mock you on a question I asked you!)

    Gingrich did not research, write the study or submit the study rejected because the conclusion was known and not original.
    Except that the only evidence we have it was rejected for that reason was what Gingrich said.

    Gingrich is irrelevant.
    Meaningless.
    Not of import.
    No influence.
    Not at all. Your argument still is Gingrich said so, therefore true.

    Shall I repeat it again?
    Maybe... you're not... deceitful and deceptive? ....Hmmm (in B-flat)?

    But I see he Gingrich gets you excited.
    So much so you go blind to the facts in front of your face.

    Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich.
    Feel better now?

    How about Halliburton?
    Bush 43?
    Cheney... oh I bet that really gets you going.
    I'm not the liar here. You are.

    You just proved everything I stated about you in one thread.
    What? That I mock you for questions I never asked?

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1058815156

    Wow. You're a liar.

    As for the other two, did I run here? No. And nothing I said twisted anything you said.

    Are you capable of posting without lying?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #38
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #39
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Anyone who thinks we can actually reduce oil prices by increasing domestic production is either delusional or from an alternate reality (or perhaps just amazingly dense and partisan). We simply do not have oil reserves large enough or accessable enough to make a large impact in the immediate or near future.

    However, I do support domestic drilling. It will have a slight impact in slowing the rise of oil prices or other nations will cut back production to maintain the same level of supply. Either way, it takes money away from the major oil nations (most of which are hostile to us) and puts money into US based companies. But I also support tackling the other side of the supply and demand ration. Raising supply will help, but so will cutting demand. Increasing taxes on oil and gasoline to cover the externality costs of oil production and consumption and using those tax dollars to fund alternative energy research is the way to go. We increase consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles and fund efforts to get off foreign oil and all the problems its caused, while reducing the amount of US dollars that go into the coffers of nations that are openly hostile and antagonistic to the US.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Supply & Demand

    Price elasticity...

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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