• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supply & Demand

Read Question


  • Total voters
    26
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is related to another thread.
Hence, went over your head.

.

Uh...you seem to think that supply increasing by 2.3% can reduce prices when demand is increasing 10.13% a year. Furthermore, you seem to think that the 2.3% increase, which will happen in 15 years can reduce prices when 10.13% increase is compounded over the same time period.

If anything, this thread went entirely over your head.
 
Some days I feel bad smacking you down painfully.

Tell me how increasing supply by less then 3% when demand is over 10% can somehow decrease prices. Try. Or just run away and ignore my post as you normally do.
The only thing you're smacking is in your right hand.
I've made my case. Will let it stand.

You can live in a bubble, and that's OK.
You also take your arrogance one step further. You assume your numbers are correct.

Is this familiar?
If you enjoy variablity so much it should be instantly recognizable.
It dovetails to 14 other little goodies.
Tip: Sarasohn

"Use of visible figures only for management, with little or no consideration of figures that are unknown or unknowable. "
and
Statistical calculations and predictions based on warped figures may lead to confusion, frustration, and wrong decisions.
You can replace decisions with conclusions... if you like. One leads to the other.
ROTFLMAO...

...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:
The only thing you're smacking is in your right hand.
I've made my case. Will let it stand.

Stand on what? A house of cards in a hurricane has more potential then what you post.

You also take your arrogance one step further. You assume your numbers are correct.

They are. Check the Drill thread. Furthermore, check the percentages on total world consumption.

Still posting that crap? Your entire argument from that article rests upon what Gringrich said.

What kind of argument is Gringrich said = True?

No actual link the study.
No discussion by anyone but Gringrich.

Do you actually think you made a decent argument?

I actually have math. Actual numbers. You know, something other then "Gringrich said so!"

I'd ask you to show how less then a million barrels a day can reduce prices when world consumption is over 85 million barrels a day and rising at 10.13% a year. Tell me, what percent of 85 million barrels is 200,000?

CAn a mom and pop grocery store force a Super Center to change its prices? LOL. That's what you're arguing.

Let's recap:

"Okay genius, tell me what other factors would reduce the price of oil. "

No response from you.

"Simple fact of the matter is that offshore is immaterial. There is no way with the increase in supply that it could even match the increase in demand. A belief that increased drilling in such areas could potentially reduce prices is to defy reality. "

No response from you.

"Considering the majority of oil is used as a liquid fuel, more natural gas, coal and nuclear won't change the price of oil. Especially when the increase in demand is coming from non-US sources. "

No response from you.

What on EARTH makes you think you are winning here?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter, I didn't even know this was about oil until someone told me, and it still doesn't matter. It still is a simple right or wrong economic question. It's a type of question I answered in my first week of AP Economics last year.

I'm guessing you still don't know what ceteris paribus means?

For you it doesn't matter and that is fine.
You've been here what... a month.

I think it matters. Vive la difference mon cher.

See, I know how Obvious Child operates.
He ascribes words to people they never uttered.
He mocks people for not answering questions they were never asked.
He accuses others of running and hiding, and is a master at hide-and-seek.

Now, what pray tell would Obvious Child have in mind with this poll?

I think you answered it above YS.
It's not about a simple question. What relevance does it have?

.
 
For you it doesn't matter and that is fine.
You've been here what... a month.

Funny how she pegged you that quickly. What does that say?

See, I know how Obvious Child operates.
He ascribes words to people they never uttered.
He mocks people for not answering questions they were never asked.
He accuses others of running and hiding, and is a master at hide-and-seek.

Why is that the only people who say that are those I regularly annihilate?

Care to revisit this thread and highlight all of the questions you ran from? Hell, i did it last post. You ran from questions. I think from now on, every time you ignore a question, I'll keep posting to remind you that you ran away.

Did you answer this one:
"Okay genius, tell me what other factors would reduce the price of oil"

No. You did not

How about where I asked you how coal would reduce oil prices? Did you answer that one?

No. You did not

Who's lying now? You.

Now, what pray tell would Obvious Child have in mind with this poll?

That your position is insane on an economic basis of mere supply and demand.

It's not about a simple question. What relevance does it have?

Actually it is. There is insufficient additional supply to reduce prices 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.
 
Last edited:
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:
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...
 
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.
 
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...

:mrgreen:
 
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:
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:
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/75283-supply-and-demand-3.html#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?
 
fiscalini-purple-moon.jpg
 
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.
 
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.

Hey Zimmer, want to tell me how we're going to get 270 million barrels of oil on top of our declining supplies in 15 years?

MATH RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.
 
Hey Zimmer, want to tell me how we're going to get 270 million barrels of oil on top of our declining supplies in 15 years?

MATH RUN FOR YOUR LIFE.

This is typical of leftists.
They take a question in its purest form, eliminate all the variables, and then say drilling won't reduce the price.

That's also how we go bankrupt. With Ponzi Schemes that work on paper but eliminate all the human, and profit motivated variables.

There are other variables like coal, natural gas, nuclear... two of three which leftists hate. Nothing new in the world of energy. No need to reinvent the wheel.

So drilling more, producing more natural gas and oil, mining and using coal (which Obama wants to kill as well) and building nukes won't assist in driving down oil prices?

OK.:lamo

Know people know why we are in trouble.
1 + 1 = 11

.

See what I mean Your Star.
I told you what this poll was about.

Taking one element, isolating it, and drawing a conclusion from it.

End of story.

.
 
Taking one element, isolating it, and drawing a conclusion from it.

.

So no actual explanation eh? You say I'm wrong, my argument is faulty but when challenged to prove it, when your basis of your argument is challenged you are completely unable in any way shape form or fashion capable of actually backing your statements up.

Not surprising.

Simple fact you cannot dispute is that supply cannot match demand. I've given up waiting for you to show how I (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong. Come back when you have something more then "I say so." Until then, don't post because you have nothing useful to add.
 
Wow, my name's been mentioned alot in this thread, like someone wants me to agree with them, or insinuating I'm too dumb to think for myself.

Anyway this thread still has a simple right, or wrong answer. With the numbers provide, demand is greater than supply, and the price will go up. If those numbers apply to the oil industry, and the effect off shore drilling will have on the market then the price will still go up.

IMO we need to focus on alternative energy sources rather than wasting time, and resources on off shore drilling.
 
Wow, my name's been mentioned alot in this thread, like someone wants me to agree with them, or insinuating I'm too dumb to think for myself.

Anyway this thread still has a simple right, or wrong answer. With the numbers provide, demand is greater than supply, and the price will go up. If those numbers apply to the oil industry, and the effect off shore drilling will have on the market then the price will still go up.

IMO we need to focus on alternative energy sources rather than wasting time, and resources on off shore drilling.
For you perhaps, but that wasn't why the thread was created.
Just say'in.

We can look for alternatives, but we have abundant coal, gas, we can build nuke plants and drill baby drill.
We also have a lot of time to evolve out of it.

OC,

Nice try with the poll. Subtle like rape.
Taking one element, isolating it, and drawing a conclusion from it.

Back to the drawing board of deceit.

BTW, how's your black screen doing?
You really should get a job... that way you might be able to afford newer technology and won't have to spend time worrying about whether you can afford to run a color picture.
ROTFLOL.

As you were (doo-whack-a-doo, whack-a-doo...).

.
 
Last edited:
Once again, no actual reason why anything Zimmer has accused me of is true.

Zimmer: You're wrong!
Me: Why?
Zimmer: Because you have no image on your LCD.

Okay then.

Has it occurred to you that maybe I actually have an LCD that doesn't use diffusers?
 
Assuming ceteris paribus, the price will rise.
 
obvious child said:
Fair enough, but everything you described furthers my argument that prices cannot drop. With oligopolistic compeition already in play and manipulation, the addition of slowly increasing supply and rapidly increasing demand suggests that up is the only logical conclusion to prices, contrary to the beliefs of some.

Sorry, I've been busy with work as of late and haven't had a chance to come to DP to see things progress.

Well, prices indeed can drop, but it's not based on supply and demand...technically. It actually does depend on S&D, but on a microeconomic level amongst the cartel nations (OPEC). The truth is that the OPEC cartel is an oligopoly, but not a harmonic one. These bastards stab each other in the back all the time. Because of some nations like Saudi Arabia with claim to a much larger supply feel a need to crowd out certain nations with a smaller pool that don't do their bidding, they will price-cut to a level that will force nations with smaller reserve to hold on to what they have while the energy "big boys" essentially slap them around and make them do their bidding. You know about manipulation. You're married, right?

They have to function as a monopoly for maximum overall profit, but they don't abide by the rules to do so. They can't efficiently function as an oligopoly because of something I mentioned in my first post - product differentiation. Saudi oil isn't all that much different or better than oil from umpteen other nations. They do indeed take a bit of a hit in profit because of lower prices. Oil is relatively inelastic, therefore reductions in price mean reductions in profit. But it's a political tool, not an economic one.

Lots of the price involved with fluctuations have nothing to do with profit and simple S&D, but quite a bit still does, and that's because of a corruption in the collusive factors of oil exporting nations.
 
Supply and demand does not work with monopolies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom