Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

The Administration Is Run By Jr. High GirlsFollow

#1 Jun 26 2008 at 5:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
She sent me a note but I'm totally not reading it!
The New York Times wrote:
The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.
Anything I could say here is obvious. I'll just settle for rolly-eyes.

Smiley: rolleyesSmiley: rolleyesSmiley: rolleyesSmiley: rolleyesSmiley: rolleyesSmiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jun 26 2008 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
The Pubbies have always been experts at the "plug your ears, close your eyes, hum really loud, and what you don't want to be there will go away" game.
#4 Jun 26 2008 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Having more oil wouldn't decrease demand, moron.
#5 Jun 26 2008 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,755 posts
Ambrya wrote:
The Pubbies have always been experts at the "plug your ears, close your eyes, hum really loud, and what you don't want to be there will go away" game.


Like Saddam and Al'Qaeda right?
#7 Jun 26 2008 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
knoxsouthy wrote:
It won't reduce demand it will reduce the cost.


No, it won't.
#8 Jun 26 2008 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
Having more oil wouldn't decrease demand, moron.


Actually, in an odd way, it would.

You have to realize that the current futures market is in what's called a backwardian condition. This means that the current price has been inflated by increased demand *today* to a point that is actually higher then the projected future price. Normally todays price should be lower then the projected future price. What causes this is when the supply and demand of an inelastic product are close. This causes the purchasers of the product to place orders earlier and earlier out of fear of a shortage (and those investing in futures as well). This spikes the price today up higher then it should be.

While the root cause is a lack of supply, the near term price inflation is caused by a "false" increase in demand in the short term. The refineries increase their orders. All of them. The market projects that there wont be enough future supply to meet those orders, and all hell breaks lose and the price jumps massively. That's what's going on right now.

Increasing supply (even projected future supply) will prevent this sort of panic buy by the refiners (cause if they can't guy oil, they're out of business). Once they realize that there will be enough supply, they'll actually reduce their buys (reducing demand for oil). The net result will decrease prices today. Not in 5 or 10 years. Right now.


Your mistake is that you're looking at demand from the consumer perspective. That's accurate to a point. However, the real demand effect in the near term is the purchase of oil by refineries, not the purchase of their products by the end consumer. The refineries certainly can increase their orders out of proportion to any real increase of global demand for their products. It's an inelastic product. They know they'll be able to sell it. But if there's a shortage, they're screwed...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Jun 26 2008 at 12:49 PM Rating: Decent
If production is still higher than consumption, how can there be a lack of supply?

By most standards, today's production still is higher than today's consumption.

#10 Jun 26 2008 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You have to realize that the current futures market is in what's called a backwardian condition. This means that the current price has been inflated by increased demand *today* to a point that is actually higher then the projected future price. Normally todays price should be lower then the projected future price. What causes this is when the supply and demand of an inelastic product are close. This causes the purchasers of the product to place orders earlier and earlier out of fear of a shortage (and those investing in futures as well). This spikes the price today up higher then it should be.


What? No. Stop smoking crack. Dec 2016 contracts are trading higher than August 2008 contracts.


While the root cause is a lack of supply, the near term price inflation is caused by a "false" increase in demand in the short term. The refineries increase their orders. All of them. The market projects that there wont be enough future supply to meet those orders, and all hell breaks lose and the price jumps massively. That's what's going on right now.


Again, no. That's not *at all* what's going on right now.


Increasing supply (even projected future supply) will prevent this sort of panic buy by the refiners (cause if they can't guy oil, they're out of business). Once they realize that there will be enough supply, they'll actually reduce their buys (reducing demand for oil). The net result will decrease prices today. Not in 5 or 10 years. Right now.


Absolutely false. Christ, I know you don't understand economics, but this is just ludicrous.


Your mistake is that you're looking at demand from the consumer perspective. That's accurate to a point. However, the real demand effect in the near term is the purchase of oil by refineries, not the purchase of their products by the end consumer. The refineries certainly can increase their orders out of proportion to any real increase of global demand for their products. It's an inelastic product. They know they'll be able to sell it. But if there's a shortage, they're screwed...


Christ, what a giant load of horseshit. Do some tiny amount of research, will you? You quite literally don't understand this *even slightly*. Amazingly you actualy understand it *significantly less well* than someone who doesn't know commodity markets exist.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#11 Jun 26 2008 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

If production is still higher than consumption, how can there be a lack of supply?

By most standards, today's production still is higher than today's consumption.


Don't waste your time. He's literally guessing and poorly paraphrasing year old news articles. The guy pumping your gas understands the market 1000 times better.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#12 Jun 26 2008 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm less interested in Oil Thread II than I am the fact that the administration didn't like the way a report was going to turn out and so, without even reading it and seeing why it said what it did (or even if they were in error), they said "We refuse to look at it until it reflects what we want!"

None so blind as those who refuse to see.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 26 2008 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'm less interested in Oil Thread II than I am the fact that the administration didn't like the way a report was going to turn out and so, without even reading it and seeing why it said what it did (or even if they were in error), they said "We refuse to look at it until it reflects what we want!"


Really? This happens all the time in any administration. It's just a procedural technique.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Jun 26 2008 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
gbaji wrote:
Barkingturtle wrote:
Having more oil wouldn't decrease demand, moron.


Actually, in an odd way, it would.

You have to realize that the current futures market is in what's called a backwardian condition.


backwardation
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#15 Jun 26 2008 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Really? This happens all the time in any administration. It's just a procedural technique.
Point it out in a year or two so I can ***** about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Jun 26 2008 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

A report by a bunch of whacked out pinko commies bent on turning the US into a 3rd world nation. I can't understand why the admnistration would want to ignore that.


Hi. You understand the administration produced the report, too, right?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Jun 26 2008 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Here's a thought; if you liberals don't think domestic drilling will make that much of a difference why fight it so hard? Do you really care that much about the caribou?


I'd much rather live next door to a herd of caribou than you, thats for sure.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#20 Jun 26 2008 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
After reading Gbaji's "theory", i think he might actually be less intelligent than your president. A feat I did not think was possible.
#21 Jun 26 2008 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
Here's a thought; if you liberals don't think domestic drilling will make that much of a difference why fight it so hard?
'the fuck? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Jun 26 2008 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Joph, dude... I have the filter on for a reason Smiley: wink2.
#25 Jun 26 2008 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That didn't help your earlier question make any more sense.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 385 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (385)