NationStates Jolt Archive

I had this conversation with a few people today. One was convinced that the price of fuel would be dropping if Obama was elected. His rational was the Obama would declare the US to be weened of oil. Thus creating downward speculating. Same scenario with the other candidates. Who out of the three would have the biggest impact on oil prices if any at all?

Meh, i dont see any of them having any real impact...

Obama and Hillary say theyre going to do shit, but, theyd have to cut through party bureaucracy, and i dont see that happening, since they cant even do it in their own primary, much less when Republicans are involved...But, just threatening can have an impact, just the threat of getting rid of the gas tax has brought the price down a good 10(just realized there's no cent sign on this keyboard, lol) cents...

McCain could possibly shove it even higher, because hed more than likely do nothing...which is sort of standard Republican thought, if you cant shoot it, why bother...

Thats my two cents though, lol....

they're all politicians, they can promise the moon, but that's so that people will vote for them. coming through on their promises however... :rolleyes:

When it comes to energy policy, I honestly believe youth has it's advantages. Obama was in his late teens to early twenties during the energy crisis of the seventies. I'd like to see what kind of impact on his opinion of energy policy that had.

On the other hand, of the three, I can't help but think that maybe there's a shred of hope that McCain is faking the complete subjugation of his soul by special interests and if he takes office, he'll go, 'MWAHAHAHAHA!!! Fooled all you Neocon fuckers! AHHH HAHAHAHA!!!!' It's a dim hope, I admit. But hope springs eternal. :p

I hate fuel prices, I also hate alcohol prices, those two burn a hole in your pocket like nothing else.

I seriously doubt any of the 3 major candidates will do anything to significantly reduce the prices of fuel. Fuel prices are the way they are because of higher demand and a lack of increase in supplies.

In one corner the Dynamic Democratic Duo Obama and Clinton have promised to take away the profits of teh ebil oil companies for fleecing America. That'll go over just great. You tell what you'd do if you were in charge of a large oil company that had access to favorable and demanding international markets and then were told that the government of one of your major clients was going to do their darndest to make sure you couldn't turn a profit in that country. I'll tell you what I would do: pack up operations there, give everyone the finger as I tell them to go fuck themselves and then maybe fart in the president's face on my way out as I head for greener pastures.

In the other corner Mad Man McCain isn't doing much to help either. He want to suspend the federal gas tax for a few months, toss out the SPR, and kill the subsidies for ethanol (perhaps the only saving grace of this issue).

It's not hard to think up ways that will reduce demand and increase supply while also giving the filthy, unwashed hippies the cleanliness they desire in everything except their personal hygene.

-First order of business is increasing nuclear power with newer, cheaper, safer reactors to reduce the use of coal for electric generation.
-Next you'll need to build new refineries to turn the coal not being burned in power plants into gas so it can be burned in cars.
-Finally, start building things that can actively filter and use excess CO2 for production of something useful. Like food. Because CO2 in higher concentrations can increase crop yields.

I voted "Jesus returning" because fuel prices may level out to a local minimum, but the trend will only be upward.

Industrial capitalism will eventually become ecologically impossible. In the meantime, there will be much suffering and death. Also, the State will have first crack at the oil. As it is, the US uses something like %50 (at least) of our total oil supply.

I'm going to make sure my house has a metric fuckload of solar panels.

I had this conversation with a few people today. One was convinced that the price of fuel would be dropping if Obama was elected. His rational was the Obama would declare the US to be weened of oil. Thus creating downward speculating. Same scenario with the other candidates. Who out of the three would have the biggest impact on oil prices if any at all?

Fuel prices and oil prices are two different things.

I don't think OIL prices will go down significantly now or ever, under any president. Sure, they might drop a few cents briefly, but the trend will continue to be climbing prices.

FUEL, on the other hand, can come from any number of sources. It will take a lot of infastructure changes to wean the nation away from non-renewable sources, and I see little difference in the potential rate of progress under any of the 2.5 remaining presidential candidates. They would all make some progress, but it's going to take more than a Presidential term or two before we see any significant reduction in energy costs for non-transportation related needs.

I hate fuel prices, I also hate alcohol prices, those two burn a hole in your pocket like nothing else.

Well, at least you can choose to not spend money on alcohol (I know, blasphemy, but I gave up cable to save money, so there y'go).

Nobody's addressed the "speculation" angle of the OP, and I'm just going to bring it up and not address it. Why? Because economics, like astrology or psychology, is more art than science, and while I've tried to reconcile what I know with what I see in the world, I can't.

So does anyone here think that a President telling America the truth about petroleum and the decline of its cheap availability will have any effect on speculation? I don't know exactly how speculation works, but I know that it's predicated on future supply and demand.

Anyone know more than I do (Good Lord, I hope so), and wish to comment?

Well after the Oil Crisis the Carter government invested heavily in renewable and alternate energy sources, America rapidly moved toward some limited measure of self-sufficient and renewable energy. It's just a shame though that with the Reagon 'reaction' America got back hooked on oil again

I'm really getting tired of people likening economics to something ridiculous like astrology. Economics is an academically rigorous field of careful investigation and peer review. That public policy wonks claim to spout 'economic predictions' which happen to perfectly coincide with their policy proposals does not in any way mean economics is meaningless or intellectually vapid. This is roughly equivalent of asking a baseball fan what weird superstitions they have and how it affects the game.

In this particular case you have economists pointing out that prices are a factor of supply and demand (which is, of course, merely a myth, as everyone knows prices are entirely set by fat cats trying to exploit the poor man), and as such, the 'tax holiday' is merely going to shift that 18 cents from taxes to the oil companies, as the price of gas is pretty much set on a supply curve facing a very sharp upward slope right now (supply is about maxed out, so even substantial raises in price would only produce minor increases in supply).

Blaming the companies for the lack of supply, and penalizing them with punitive tax rates, will simply retard investment in building new infrastructure - essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. Without new investments in oil refineries, the supply of gasoline will not be significantly increased. If the return on investment is substantially lower than in other industries, that investment simply will not be made.

This is very simple economics and has near universal support from the economics community. A few public policy wonks, election consultants, and public relations idiots spouting ignorant drivel in a blatant pandering attempt does not change economic reality, nor should it call into question the validity of economics as a field.

the price of fuel is still way to LOW and people are still too much idiots to realize it. motor fuels anyway. methane from biowaste for cooking and heating is another matter, but not from growing crops to make fuel out of on land they need to be growing food to feed themselves on either.

nor so called clean coal, nor nuclear with its political and waste disposal problems and other, though lesser risks, cancerous contaminations and so on.

we don't NEED cheep fuels, we need fewer fuel fools, especially in energy and transportaion planning capacities.

=^^=
.../\...

I'm really getting tired of people likening economics to something ridiculous like astrology. Economics is an academically rigorous field of careful investigation and peer review. That public policy wonks claim to spout 'economic predictions' which happen to perfectly coincide with their policy proposals does not in any way mean economics is meaningless or intellectually vapid. This is roughly equivalent of asking a baseball fan what weird superstitions they have and how it affects the game.

In this particular case you have economists pointing out that prices are a factor of supply and demand (which is, of course, merely a myth, as everyone knows prices are entirely set by fat cats trying to exploit the poor man), and as such, the 'tax holiday' is merely going to shift that 18 cents from taxes to the oil companies, as the price of gas is pretty much set on a supply curve facing a very sharp upward slope right now (supply is about maxed out, so even substantial raises in price would only produce minor increases in supply).

Blaming the companies for the lack of supply, and penalizing them with punitive tax rates, will simply retard investment in building new infrastructure - essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. Without new investments in oil refineries, the supply of gasoline will not be significantly increased. If the return on investment is substantially lower than in other industries, that investment simply will not be made.

This is very simple economics and has near universal support from the economics community. A few public policy wonks, election consultants, and public relations idiots spouting ignorant drivel in a blatant pandering attempt does not change economic reality, nor should it call into question the validity of economics as a field.

Right. So that's why six economists can have six completely different analyses of the economy. Nope. Astrology. Sorry.

the price of fuel is still way to LOW and people are still too much idiots to realize it. motor fuels anyway. methane from biowaste for cooking and heating is another matter, but not from growing crops to make fuel out of on land they need to be growing food to feed themselves on either.

nor so called clean coal, nor nuclear with its political and waste disposal problems and other, though lesser risks, cancerous contaminations and so on.

we don't NEED cheep fuels, we need fewer fuel fools, especially in energy and transportaion planning capacities.

=^^=
.../\...

Now there's a good point. Three grades of gasoline? Why?

(in response to entropic...)

actually its rather incestuous, self isolated from any other reality, even those of the survival of life, and rather completely circling back on itself, however accademically rigoursly self consistent internally it might or might not otherwise be.

there is a natural economics of the mechanisms of life, but this is a thing totally seperate and appart from the illusions created about it by symbolic value and substituting symbolic for real value and measuring real value in symbolic value terms.

this natural economics of natures cycles of renewal recycling absolutely everything 100%, is not however self isolated from the real forces that symbolic illusions are affected by.

but monetary economics is driven more by human emotional attatchemnts and even fantasies, then how anything outside of itself actually works.

and that's the real problem with it.

i mean we really are destroying the very real basis of our own existence driven and motivated by these incentives of our own fantasies and emotional attatchments we've become familiar with, all with the accademic gloss and seal of approval of the supposed respectability of the so called science of so called economics.

and we really really really need to wake up about that real soon, before nature, real nature, wakes us up for us. the hard way.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't think it has anything to do with who is going to be president. I think it has something to do with the all the dumb money chasing commodities and lack of position limits on the ICE. Also, the chinese are apparently subsidizing domestic consumption, 'cos the olympics is their last chance to show off for one hundred years, so they want to look better than martians.

I did hear that congress is going to do something about the lack of position limits though, so that might bring the party to an end rather quickly.

Even if not, it'll be over before the next president. (Absent some kind of silly geopolitical event).

...(Absent some kind of silly geopolitical event).

like actually running out of ECONOMICALLY extractable and proccessable crude perhaps?

(although i rather doubt that will complete itself ENTIRELY within the term of the next president, or even the next two, but there's no way supplies arn't going to diminish as it seems they are already starting to. nor has human population over all actually started to diminish)

=^^=
.../\...

like actually running out of ECONOMICALLY extractable and proccessable crude perhaps?


If there is no alternative before then the last thing anyone will be worrying about will be the price of west texas intermediate. Specially if they are, old/infirm/physically weak.

like actually running out of ECONOMICALLY extractable and proccessable crude perhaps?

(although i rather doubt that will complete itself ENTIRELY within the term of the next president, or even the next two, but there's no way supplies arn't going to diminish as it seems they are already starting to. nor has human population over all actually started to diminish)

=^^=
.../\...

This is why we need to believe in Tom Cruise. He will save us.

None of them, most likely. The last two times oil prices collapsed were in 1985 and 1998, and they occurred under a Republican and Democratic president respectively.

That being said, whichever one can most effectively cut oil demand and boost production will be responsible for the biggest decline in oil prices over their term. The US is still the world's largest oil consumer and any changes in our consumption dramatically affect the world oil market. However, in general it is pretty rare for government policy to materially affect oil consumption; more often, it's simply due to market forces pushing demand in one direction or another although government policy does tend to accelerate (or inhibit) those forces.

None of them, most likely. The last two times oil prices collapsed were in 1985 and 1998, and they occurred under a Republican and Democratic president respectively.

That being said, whichever one can most effectively cut oil demand and boost production will be responsible for the biggest decline in oil prices over their term. The US is still the world's largest oil consumer and any changes in our consumption dramatically affect the world oil market. However, in general it is pretty rare for government policy to materially affect oil consumption; more often, it's simply due to market forces pushing demand in one direction or another although government policy does tend to accelerate (or inhibit) those forces.
The president has negligible effect on oil demand. No matter who is elected, they are not going to make a difference in the price of a commodity with a worldwide fungible market. Congress on the other hand, has a chance at making a minor impact in the US.

Imposing more regulation and punitive taxes to make sure there is not any significant increase in supply is the most likely scenario, in which case the price of gasoline will just keep climbing.

Ending subsidies for and content requirements of ethanol, removing the byzantine regulations on gasoline (such as reducing or harmonizing blending requirements so gasoline is actually a comparatively homogeneous product instead of each jurisdiction being a completely different and non-tradeable product), and allowing new refineries to be built, will substantially reduce the price of gasoline.

---

Economics, beyond the over-simplified theory taught to undergrads, is a legitimate science complete with testable hypothesis and is very relevant and applicable to reality - not meaningless astrology which has no academic basis whatsoever. That ideologues and politicians play upon the base ignorance of the population, and the population more interested in a story about some villain trying to exploit others than in realities of economics, just speaks to the need for better education about economics.

That not all economists have a hive mind about various issues does not indicate that economics is a sham - I can find you a dozen different physicists who disagree about quantum mechanics, a dozen different pathologists who disagree about Alzheimer's, a dozen different epidemiologists who disagree about modeling disease outbreaks, and so on. Every academic field has disagreements - it is the very nature of science. Only religious fundamentalists or charlatans can speak with any certainty about everything. Disagreements about economic behavior in no way diminishes the validity of economics anymore than disagreements on the best way to treat a patient diminishes medicine to the point of being called astrology.

I had this conversation with a few people today. One was convinced that the price of fuel would be dropping if Obama was elected. His rational was the Obama would declare the US to be weened of oil. Thus creating downward speculating. Same scenario with the other candidates. Who out of the three would have the biggest impact on oil prices if any at all?

All politicians are the same. Whoever gets in office will do what's expedient.

The best thing that can be said about Bush is that he didn't do what all the others did - instead he was stupid.

All politicians are the same. Whoever gets in office will do what's expedient.

The best thing that can be said about Bush is that he didn't do what all the others did - instead he was stupid.

Bush has let to many influence his decisions.

I suspect the prices will come down or even crash within the year. However I think the biggest downward impact would come from the Democrats because of the energy speeches they will give. The standard lets get us off oil and investment into clean fuels speech. It worked for Reagan and Clinton. I suspect it would have a slight affect on oil prices while not bringing them down totally because of the increased demand.

Bush has let to many influence his decisions.

I suspect the prices will come down or even crash within the year. However I think the biggest downward impact would come from the Democrats because of the energy speeches they will give. The standard lets get us off oil and investment into clean fuels speech. It worked for Reagan and Clinton. I suspect it would have a slight affect on oil prices while not bringing them down totally because of the increased demand.
Speeches do nothing. I don't care how amazing a speech someone gives, it is not going to change the price of oil one bit (unless they are pushing for certain regulatory changes to totally screw up the market, in which case the price will go up).

The best thing politicians can do is to keep out of it. Unfortunately they win votes by being seen to be 'doing something', nevermind that the something is counterproductive at best, and will probably end up costing significantly, they are seen to be 'doing something'. And an ignorant public will fall for it, because they want to hear some story about the heroic politician saving us from the evil villains of the week, rather than actual economic reality.

When it comes to energy policy, I honestly believe youth has it's advantages. Obama was in his late teens to early twenties during the energy crisis of the seventies. I'd like to see what kind of impact on his opinion of energy policy that had.

On the other hand, of the three, I can't help but think that maybe there's a shred of hope that McCain is faking the complete subjugation of his soul by special interests and if he takes office, he'll go, 'MWAHAHAHAHA!!! Fooled all you Neocon fuckers! AHHH HAHAHAHA!!!!' It's a dim hope, I admit. But hope springs eternal. :p

Umm, have you studied McCain biography much? :headbang: He supported the War in Iraq from day 1, never stopped supporting it. He was a prisoner in Vietnam, not a "war hero". He wants another Cold War, to get revenge on the evil Soviets for shooting his pathetic @$$ down in Vietnam. POWs who turn on their brethern shouldn't give people hope, no matter how dim.