Brace for $5 gas, Shell exec warns U.S.

It's the powers that be who set the price of gas. This has been known for months that the price would go up. It's all a game. This is the decade where we either get sucked dry or smarten up. Most ain't gonna be doing anything to prepare for what's to come.
 
Originally Posted by GetThisMoney

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by ninjahood

blame obama for being anti oil.....he refuses to let exploratory digging....and we're not pumpin out gas da way we was pumping it out in da 70's...which was 10 million barrels

of oil a day....we're at 7 million and shrinking...
30t6p3b.gif
Click to expand...
Yeah.. thats it. 
eyes.gif
Click to expand...
its DEFINITELY his fault...he has a 8 year moratorium on drilling on da mexican gulf...and oil is banned from being drilled off da rich oil deposits off da coast of California...

 just cuz accidents happen don't mean you STOP drilling....its like if we STOP da plane industry because of 1 crash....if we leave our oil needs to foreigners then we're gonna

have no choice but to pay out da ear for oil.....

and don't gimme that "green energy" garbage....INTERNATIONAL demand is up with India and China QUICKLY industrializing themselves and purchasing more automobiles

and getting richer.
Click to expand...


False, gas prices are due to rise because of inflation. Compared to most world powers, our gas is cheap and prices are reaching equilibrium. If you factor in inflation, gas prices are currently cheaper than 1970 prices. So stop blaming Obamas refusal to drill, alternative energy needs to gain momentum. Dependency on all oil not just foreign needs to decrease.
Click to expand...
no. in recent times inflation has been falling while gas prices have been rising. whether overall price levels increase or decrease gas prices continue to rise. this is not about inflation, it isn't about Obama, and it isn't about the "dependency on foreign oil" bull %#*% that politicians have been trying to feed us.

gas prices are being driven up by excessive speculation, not supply and demand. read some of the links and quotes in this thread. oil demand has been going down while prices have been going up.
 
Originally Posted by GetThisMoney

Originally Posted by ninjahood

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Originally Posted by ninjahood

blame obama for being anti oil.....he refuses to let exploratory digging....and we're not pumpin out gas da way we was pumping it out in da 70's...which was 10 million barrels

of oil a day....we're at 7 million and shrinking...
30t6p3b.gif
Click to expand...
Yeah.. thats it. 
eyes.gif
Click to expand...
its DEFINITELY his fault...he has a 8 year moratorium on drilling on da mexican gulf...and oil is banned from being drilled off da rich oil deposits off da coast of California...

 just cuz accidents happen don't mean you STOP drilling....its like if we STOP da plane industry because of 1 crash....if we leave our oil needs to foreigners then we're gonna

have no choice but to pay out da ear for oil.....

and don't gimme that "green energy" garbage....INTERNATIONAL demand is up with India and China QUICKLY industrializing themselves and purchasing more automobiles

and getting richer.
Click to expand...


False, gas prices are due to rise because of inflation. Compared to most world powers, our gas is cheap and prices are reaching equilibrium. If you factor in inflation, gas prices are currently cheaper than 1970 prices. So stop blaming Obamas refusal to drill, alternative energy needs to gain momentum. Dependency on all oil not just foreign needs to decrease.
Click to expand...
no. in recent times inflation has been falling while gas prices have been rising. whether overall price levels increase or decrease gas prices continue to rise. this is not about inflation, it isn't about Obama, and it isn't about the "dependency on foreign oil" bull %#*% that politicians have been trying to feed us.

gas prices are being driven up by excessive speculation, not supply and demand. read some of the links and quotes in this thread. oil demand has been going down while prices have been going up.
 
Originally Posted by Method Man

I believe at that time you were of the opinion that the problem was too much regulation.  (No, I'm not the least bit interested in hashing that out again.) 
Of Course you are not, this is not 2007, I have graduated and you cannot simply do as you used to do and dismiss what I have to say because I am not an expert. I am now an economist and the opinion of this one expert, if you include Central Banking as form of regulation, I consider Central Banking and its bailout friendly policies to be the main culprit in the recent liquidity crunch.

If we excluded Central banking from the category of regulation, regulation would have been, at best, a speed bump for the out of control excesses of Wall Street whose leading firms considered, and for very credible reasons, Ben Bernanke and his crew in Washington to be not just their rescue crew but also accomplices in what was not only a heist but also a coup.

You can intimidate and bully a 19 or 20 year old college kid, who disagrees with you, and call him a kid ( that and other things, a personal attack, no matter how clever you are in delivering it, is still just that) and cite the experts who disagree but there are people three times or four times our age, with many more credentials and accolades than we might ever get, who disagree with you and/or me. The problem with pulling rank is that there are people out there, with whom you disagree, who out rank you and as of 2010 on the subject of economics (In theory and in practice) at least, that group now includes me.

For the record, I have no vendetta with you, I just have a good memory and can recall what people have said to or about me. Whether, positive, negative or neutral, I remember, I cannot help but to do so and I recall your narrative back in the mid 2000's how I was not really qualified to have an opinion. Times have changed.


Of course "too big to fail" is a joke (at our collective expense.)  Even if one accepted the premise, why would the solution be FURTHER concentration via government subsidized mergers?  

That was not our only option, there is something known, outside of Washington, called, letting firms die and letting new ones emerge.



A family gets duped into signing up for an ARM under the assumption that they can refinance before the interest rate spikes, then gets blamed for their own recklessness when the house enters foreclosure.  

Everyone  involved in the process deserves the blame. Greed is not the sole property of anyone, nor is bad judgement. It is still sad that those at the end point of the process have not been helped in any significant way while other have been bailed out and are thriving when they, the banks, had more information at their disposal and acted just as if not more recklessly than people who consumed home equity and consumer credit.

Meanwhile, companies like AIG operated recklessly, if not lawlessly, in creating this time bomb and ultimately lacked the liquidity to cover their own bets.  For $13 trillion, we could've paid off not only every sub-prime mortgage - but every mortgage period in the entire country.  The opportunity existed to create a new Homestead Act that could've eventually paid for itself via shared-equity mortgages

We are in accord on this, since the public sector essentially did about spend that much, they should have directed the funds towards home owners instead of at those who held the mortgages.


 
Click to expand...
  
 
Originally Posted by Method Man

I believe at that time you were of the opinion that the problem was too much regulation.  (No, I'm not the least bit interested in hashing that out again.) 
Of Course you are not, this is not 2007, I have graduated and you cannot simply do as you used to do and dismiss what I have to say because I am not an expert. I am now an economist and the opinion of this one expert, if you include Central Banking as form of regulation, I consider Central Banking and its bailout friendly policies to be the main culprit in the recent liquidity crunch.

If we excluded Central banking from the category of regulation, regulation would have been, at best, a speed bump for the out of control excesses of Wall Street whose leading firms considered, and for very credible reasons, Ben Bernanke and his crew in Washington to be not just their rescue crew but also accomplices in what was not only a heist but also a coup.

You can intimidate and bully a 19 or 20 year old college kid, who disagrees with you, and call him a kid ( that and other things, a personal attack, no matter how clever you are in delivering it, is still just that) and cite the experts who disagree but there are people three times or four times our age, with many more credentials and accolades than we might ever get, who disagree with you and/or me. The problem with pulling rank is that there are people out there, with whom you disagree, who out rank you and as of 2010 on the subject of economics (In theory and in practice) at least, that group now includes me.

For the record, I have no vendetta with you, I just have a good memory and can recall what people have said to or about me. Whether, positive, negative or neutral, I remember, I cannot help but to do so and I recall your narrative back in the mid 2000's how I was not really qualified to have an opinion. Times have changed.


Of course "too big to fail" is a joke (at our collective expense.)  Even if one accepted the premise, why would the solution be FURTHER concentration via government subsidized mergers?  

That was not our only option, there is something known, outside of Washington, called, letting firms die and letting new ones emerge.



A family gets duped into signing up for an ARM under the assumption that they can refinance before the interest rate spikes, then gets blamed for their own recklessness when the house enters foreclosure.  

Everyone  involved in the process deserves the blame. Greed is not the sole property of anyone, nor is bad judgement. It is still sad that those at the end point of the process have not been helped in any significant way while other have been bailed out and are thriving when they, the banks, had more information at their disposal and acted just as if not more recklessly than people who consumed home equity and consumer credit.

Meanwhile, companies like AIG operated recklessly, if not lawlessly, in creating this time bomb and ultimately lacked the liquidity to cover their own bets.  For $13 trillion, we could've paid off not only every sub-prime mortgage - but every mortgage period in the entire country.  The opportunity existed to create a new Homestead Act that could've eventually paid for itself via shared-equity mortgages

We are in accord on this, since the public sector essentially did about spend that much, they should have directed the funds towards home owners instead of at those who held the mortgages.


 
Click to expand...
  
 
Originally Posted by Cronicmolemolereturns

I'm always amazed when I go to the U.S.A and I see gas at like 2 bucks.. the lowest it ever got here was 4 dollars.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't paid less than $8 for about 5 years. Pretty glad I did more miles on my bike than in my car last year.
 
Originally Posted by Cronicmolemolereturns

I'm always amazed when I go to the U.S.A and I see gas at like 2 bucks.. the lowest it ever got here was 4 dollars.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I haven't paid less than $8 for about 5 years. Pretty glad I did more miles on my bike than in my car last year.
 
In the UK and in Continental Europe, the high tax on gasoline is what makes the price at the pump about two or three times higher in price than it is in the US. So in theory you are getting a rebate, of sorts, in terms of public goods and that is the case in practice in the countries with very little corruption, which is the case for many countries in Europe.

I would prefer paying lower taxes and letting people spend, save or donate their own money as they see fit but having the 200% or so surcharge come back to me in the form of various benefits is not that bad.


As far as gasoline prices, in general are concerned, there is still a market for it, a market where the demand side is heavily influenced by financial market speculation and supply can be depressed or raised by government policy. President Obama, Congress, US Consumers, Chinese Consumers, commodities traders and many others all play a role in shaping gasoline prices. There is a lot more than your own pet issue tied to the price of gasoline, it is very dynamic.

There is nothing wrong with speculators, they slow down today's consumption and delay consumption so there can be more of it tomorrow. However, any firm that speculates in commodities should have to give up its access to the Federal Reserve, any firm that is not just a simple bank should not have access to the Fed. That would cool down a lot of bad behavior on Wall street and even outside of the US.
 
In the UK and in Continental Europe, the high tax on gasoline is what makes the price at the pump about two or three times higher in price than it is in the US. So in theory you are getting a rebate, of sorts, in terms of public goods and that is the case in practice in the countries with very little corruption, which is the case for many countries in Europe.

I would prefer paying lower taxes and letting people spend, save or donate their own money as they see fit but having the 200% or so surcharge come back to me in the form of various benefits is not that bad.


As far as gasoline prices, in general are concerned, there is still a market for it, a market where the demand side is heavily influenced by financial market speculation and supply can be depressed or raised by government policy. President Obama, Congress, US Consumers, Chinese Consumers, commodities traders and many others all play a role in shaping gasoline prices. There is a lot more than your own pet issue tied to the price of gasoline, it is very dynamic.

There is nothing wrong with speculators, they slow down today's consumption and delay consumption so there can be more of it tomorrow. However, any firm that speculates in commodities should have to give up its access to the Federal Reserve, any firm that is not just a simple bank should not have access to the Fed. That would cool down a lot of bad behavior on Wall street and even outside of the US.
 
I believe at that time you were of the opinion that the problem was too much regulation.  (No, I'm not the least bit interested in hashing that out again.) 
Of Course you are not, this is not 2007, I have graduated and you cannot simply do as you used to do and dismiss what I have to say because I am not an expert. I am now an economist and the opinion of this one expert, if you include Central Banking as form of regulation, I consider Central Banking and its bailout friendly policies to be the main culprit in the recent liquidity crunch.
Click to expand...

*sigh*Let's just get this over with. 
This thread isn't about a topic that hurt your feelings two years ago.  Move on with your life. 

My issue with your position at the time didn't stem from your lack of credentials but, to be blunt, because you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.  Look at the position ninjahood (and I'm sorry to use him as the example here) took in this post.  THAT is how you sounded two years ago.  He took a position that seems logically reasoned, but was arrived at with a lot of assumption and very little substantive information.  It happens.  

If being sophomoric were a rarity, it wouldn't be such a generalized condition.  If you asked me what the greatest album of all time was in 1997 I might've said Wu Tang Forever.  

If you're into the whole Ron Paul kill the fed thing now (also a 2008 favorite), great.  These days, the Clippers have a larger fan-base than the Federal Reserve.  Citing "bailout friendly" policies as the primary (let alone exclusive) driver of the sub-prime catastrophe strikes me as sheer hyperbole, but I'll assume you're just staking out a provocative position in attempt to bait me into a debate to show off all that wondrous knowledge you've gained through your new life as a banking professional.  Sorry, but I'm sure you'll find another outlet for it - hopefully you can use the expertise to help some of your fellow members out.  I think that would be far more productive than picking fights.  Not everyone enjoys arguing.     

Since I, for one, don't enjoy bickering, I'm gonna ignore the hackneyed and misdirected "Beltway-insider" jab.  (Since when have I've ever been a champion of using public money to insulate private firms from the consequences of their destructive, predatory behavior?)  I don't know what demons you're wrestling with these days, but don't use me to personify them.  

You came in here looking to start something with me, acting as though my post had anything at all to do with you.  I hate to break it to you, but the fixation isn't reciprocal.  I don't follow you around.  I don't post with you in mind.  If I hadn't seen you in a nutrition thread or something a couple of weeks ago, I wouldn't even have known that you were still posting here.  Whatever "blood feud" you think we have exists only in your own mind.  Don't make it a problem for everyone who came into this thread to actually discuss the topic they clicked on. 

If you've got something else to say to me, direct it to my inbox.  This thread isn't about me and, believe it or not, it's not about you, either.  

You're attempting to drag this thread off topic and for what end?  To try and exact "revenge" over an argument you used the same means to incite TWO YEARS ago?  

Want to show us how much you've grown since then?  Let it go.

To paraphrase Zeus from Die Hard with a Vengance:   I'm not your measuring stick, your sparring partner, or your nemesis.  

I'm your total stranger.  
 
I believe at that time you were of the opinion that the problem was too much regulation.  (No, I'm not the least bit interested in hashing that out again.) 
Of Course you are not, this is not 2007, I have graduated and you cannot simply do as you used to do and dismiss what I have to say because I am not an expert. I am now an economist and the opinion of this one expert, if you include Central Banking as form of regulation, I consider Central Banking and its bailout friendly policies to be the main culprit in the recent liquidity crunch.
Click to expand...

*sigh*Let's just get this over with. 
This thread isn't about a topic that hurt your feelings two years ago.  Move on with your life. 

My issue with your position at the time didn't stem from your lack of credentials but, to be blunt, because you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.  Look at the position ninjahood (and I'm sorry to use him as the example here) took in this post.  THAT is how you sounded two years ago.  He took a position that seems logically reasoned, but was arrived at with a lot of assumption and very little substantive information.  It happens.  

If being sophomoric were a rarity, it wouldn't be such a generalized condition.  If you asked me what the greatest album of all time was in 1997 I might've said Wu Tang Forever.  

If you're into the whole Ron Paul kill the fed thing now (also a 2008 favorite), great.  These days, the Clippers have a larger fan-base than the Federal Reserve.  Citing "bailout friendly" policies as the primary (let alone exclusive) driver of the sub-prime catastrophe strikes me as sheer hyperbole, but I'll assume you're just staking out a provocative position in attempt to bait me into a debate to show off all that wondrous knowledge you've gained through your new life as a banking professional.  Sorry, but I'm sure you'll find another outlet for it - hopefully you can use the expertise to help some of your fellow members out.  I think that would be far more productive than picking fights.  Not everyone enjoys arguing.     

Since I, for one, don't enjoy bickering, I'm gonna ignore the hackneyed and misdirected "Beltway-insider" jab.  (Since when have I've ever been a champion of using public money to insulate private firms from the consequences of their destructive, predatory behavior?)  I don't know what demons you're wrestling with these days, but don't use me to personify them.  

You came in here looking to start something with me, acting as though my post had anything at all to do with you.  I hate to break it to you, but the fixation isn't reciprocal.  I don't follow you around.  I don't post with you in mind.  If I hadn't seen you in a nutrition thread or something a couple of weeks ago, I wouldn't even have known that you were still posting here.  Whatever "blood feud" you think we have exists only in your own mind.  Don't make it a problem for everyone who came into this thread to actually discuss the topic they clicked on. 

If you've got something else to say to me, direct it to my inbox.  This thread isn't about me and, believe it or not, it's not about you, either.  

You're attempting to drag this thread off topic and for what end?  To try and exact "revenge" over an argument you used the same means to incite TWO YEARS ago?  

Want to show us how much you've grown since then?  Let it go.

To paraphrase Zeus from Die Hard with a Vengance:   I'm not your measuring stick, your sparring partner, or your nemesis.  

I'm your total stranger.  
 
^ Wow Meth went off..........

Well back to topic......The link Meth posted was a good read, I wonder.....If alternate means of energy were to take off, would we see the 1.00 a gallon prices we were blessed with back in 99-2000??
 
^ Wow Meth went off..........

Well back to topic......The link Meth posted was a good read, I wonder.....If alternate means of energy were to take off, would we see the 1.00 a gallon prices we were blessed with back in 99-2000??
 
If it even reaches 4 dollars a gallon im sure a LOT of people will be bringing the bicycles out. Shoot i know i will since I have a gas guzzling mustang
 
If it even reaches 4 dollars a gallon im sure a LOT of people will be bringing the bicycles out. Shoot i know i will since I have a gas guzzling mustang
 
A lot of pseudo-intellectual discourse in here by people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about. Quoting a rolling stones article nor getting a degree in economics provides you with credentials. Economists have contributed absolutely nothing to the American colossus, other than their ability to prolong problems.

The idea that "Homestead Act" style legislation is a good idea is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Why not just just adapt the former Soviet Union's constitution as our own? This is coming from someone that supports "socialized medicine", provided the top tier of the business that provides the innovation that leads the U.S. in medical patents is free to profit.

My take (if anyone cares):


The man warning of $5 gas is the same man who's pension is directly tied to the success of his former employer. His employment history makes him the opposite of credible in these matters; this is just fear mongering with clear intentions.


Drilling in the U.S., which I do support provided ultra-strict regulation and oversight of drilling procedures are in place, would do absolutely nothing for the price of oil. I honestly have no idea why people think it would, aside from ignorance of commodity markets.


U.S. oil producers sell at the same exchanges and market rates as everyone else in the world. They have no interest in selling oil to anyone at subsidized rates if they can get market rates (which they can and do), and higher prices only result in better margins for them, as exploration and extraction costs have fallen dramatically in the past 10 years. The U.S. is only one of many, many, countries that produces oil; we are no longer market makers. There is really no amount of oil we could produce that would have any impact on market prices.
 
A lot of pseudo-intellectual discourse in here by people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about. Quoting a rolling stones article nor getting a degree in economics provides you with credentials. Economists have contributed absolutely nothing to the American colossus, other than their ability to prolong problems.

The idea that "Homestead Act" style legislation is a good idea is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Why not just just adapt the former Soviet Union's constitution as our own? This is coming from someone that supports "socialized medicine", provided the top tier of the business that provides the innovation that leads the U.S. in medical patents is free to profit.

My take (if anyone cares):


The man warning of $5 gas is the same man who's pension is directly tied to the success of his former employer. His employment history makes him the opposite of credible in these matters; this is just fear mongering with clear intentions.


Drilling in the U.S., which I do support provided ultra-strict regulation and oversight of drilling procedures are in place, would do absolutely nothing for the price of oil. I honestly have no idea why people think it would, aside from ignorance of commodity markets.


U.S. oil producers sell at the same exchanges and market rates as everyone else in the world. They have no interest in selling oil to anyone at subsidized rates if they can get market rates (which they can and do), and higher prices only result in better margins for them, as exploration and extraction costs have fallen dramatically in the past 10 years. The U.S. is only one of many, many, countries that produces oil; we are no longer market makers. There is really no amount of oil we could produce that would have any impact on market prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom