Pres. Obama Discusses Oil Market Manipulation - Page 3

saltwn · #21 (**permalink**) 04-18-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Don't have that link yet, hey?

But yeah, I did know Pelosi and others have investments in natural gas. I'd still like to see this link to where Democrats are saying go Fracking. Go natural gas wherever you find it. Why don't they just give their EPA a kick in the ass then?

There's more to this than a remark from a Democrat saying "We like Natural Gas".

I can find you an equal number of Republicans saying "We like it too, only moreso". Click on the Sarah Palin link above for example.

If Republicans are what's stopping a major push to natural gas show me evidence. Libertarians like the Kochs being against more tax breaks for it is not what I'm talking about. Wanna see some links to Democrat holding procedures through unnecessary regulations?

I will try to get those links if you'll bump this tomorrow. Cannot load some pages well at all due to wifi issues.
[quote=AZRWinger;426027]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Teddy Roosevelt! You are kidding right? Before Carnige Steel rose to dominate the market steel sold for $54 per ton. At the time TR's trust busters "saved" us from monopolist price gouging steel prices had "increased" to $11.54 per ton. Prices increased
after the trust busters meddling. Of course oil showed a similar price pattern, significant decline thanks to the evil monopolists followed by price increases after Federal meddling. In fact consumers ended up paying more thanks to TR's trust busting.

Short sellers can drive commodity prices down just like stocks. Short sales indicate investors prediction the price of the commodity will decline.

Teddy the food regulator

AZRWinger · #22 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 12:17 PM

[quote=saltwn;426029]I will try to get those links if you'll bump this tomorrow. Cannot load some pages well at all due to wifi issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Teddy the food regulator

I see you bought into the myth of the sausage maker sweeping the floor into the grinder. Increased Federal regulations were strongly supported by large producers because it gave them an advantage over their smaller rivals. The large producer's greater volume allows them to dilute the impact of increased compliance costs. Of course after the Federal government's regulations create an artificial barrier to rivals entering the market, we have the very monopoly the regulations were supposed to prevent.

Infidel Dog · #23 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 12:40 PM

[quote=AZRWinger;426127]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I will try to get those links if you'll bump this tomorrow. Cannot load some pages well at all due to wifi issues.

I see you bought into the myth of the sausage maker sweeping the floor into the grinder. Increased Federal regulations were strongly supported by large producers because it gave them an advantage over their smaller rivals. The large producer's greater volume allows them to dilute the impact of increased compliance costs. Of course after the Federal government's regulations create an artificial barrier to rivals entering the market, we have the very monopoly the regulations were supposed to prevent.

I forgot about the specifics. Basically all I was thinking, and why I wanted to see a link, was just because some Dems are supporting some providers doesn't mean they're giving full support to drilling. Regulations are stopping it all over the place.

cottonbroker · #24 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 06:35 PM

As a commodity broker I find Obamas assertion that oil specs are the driving force behind higher oil prices as being absurd. This is simply another manner in which Obama is passing the blame to someone else and as usual he is blaming the rich. For one, spec traders trade the short side of the markets as well as the long side so to even suggest the prices would always be manipulated in an upward manner is quite frankly, naive. Specs can drive markets up or down for very short periods of time but they are very short periods of time and not for intermediate and/or longer periods of time. It is not like the specs all get on the phone with one another and work in tandem. lol...If they did they would cut one anothers throat in a minute if they knew each others next move. This is simply another Obama dog and pony show to rally his base, pass the blame and prey on the ignorance of the public regarding the financial arena.

saltwn · #25 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

I see you bought into the myth of the sausage maker sweeping the floor into the grinder. Increased Federal regulations were strongly supported by large producers because it gave them an advantage over their smaller rivals. The large producer's greater volume allows them to dilute the impact of increased compliance costs. Of course after the Federal government's regulations create an artificial barrier to rivals entering the market, we have the very monopoly the regulations were supposed to prevent.

No. Teddy bought in to poor, contaminating and dangerous practices going on with virtually ALL meat producers. He had an immediate inspection ---

Quote:

..Roosevelt ...sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill, and social worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities.

Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three shifts a day for three weeks to thwart the inspection, Neill and Reynolds were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack of concern by plant managers. Following their report, Roosevelt became a supporter of regulation of the meat packing industry.

FMIA & Pure Food and Drug Act came out of those efforts.
The acts "also gave the government broad jurisdiction over food in interstate commerce."

WIKI source is well cited.

saltwn · #26 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Link please, but even if that turns out to have some fact behind it, why would you think Republicans would be against it?

You do know you can use natural gas energy for pretty much anything you can use oil energy for, right? It isn't just the grid.

Presently the ones who seem to be having the greatest effect is the environmental lobby. Among other things they're against fracking.

Oh wait, Libetarians and others don't want to give Natural Gas suppliers more tax breaks. Is that what you mean?

I think I know what you may be talking about, but you may be a little mixed up. Yes T. Bone wants tax breaks on natural gas, and yes the Kochs seem to be against it, but they're both Republicans. Also...now that I think you may be zeroing in on the T. Bone thing, I think I know what you may talking about concerning the grid. Are you still back on T. Bone's old failed, plan to litter Texas with windmills so he could backup power, and supply them with his natural gas?

Here's one. It's not the only and is pretty recent but that shows the R's don't neccessarily jump onboard with a good idea. Watch what happens or better yet call your congressman if you are in favor of any of this:

Quote:

On the second day of his five-state, three-day tour, the Democratic president sought to counter Republican criticism of his energy policies and said his proposed tax incentives for natural gas trucks would bolster demand for the fuel.

Quote:

...booming natural gas sector, which ...grown dramatically in recent years as advances in technology have unlocked vast new reserves.
Earlier on Thursday, at a UPS facility in Las Vegas, Obama said natural gas could support more than 600,000 American jobs by the end of the decade...

Quote:

Using domestic natural gas as a cleaner alternative to importing foreign oil has been heavily promoted by Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens and has attracted support from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Quote:

Obama's natural gas truck proposal, which would need congressional approval, still could face an uphill battle. Republicans campaigning on promises to cut government spending would likely resist costly new energy subsidies.Obama pushes energy plan on campaign-style tour - politics - msnbc.com
Similar measures aimed at expanding tax breaks for natural gas vehicles have failed to break through partisan gridlock, and conservative groups have opposed such legislation on the grounds that government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in the energy sector.

If these bumble heads would just bring this **** to the floor is all I'm asking. Debate, cut, reconsider, debate some more and get a bill!

Infidel Dog · #27 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 09:07 PM

That is kind of true. Obama has been making friendly noises concerning natural gas since he started campaigning for 2012 last year, but what was his EPA actually doing before that?

From Gung-Ho to Uh-Oh: Charting the Government’s Moves on Fracking - ProPublica

BTW there's no real evidence Fracking causes the kind of "pollution" they write into the language of each of those regulations, and the industry is making major advances in controlling what there is.

However you have to give Obama and his EPA a nod. The most recent round of regulations did show a willingness to maybe slack off a bit, so maybe if T Bone can swing a deal of some sort before the election he can get those tax breaks and subsidies he wants to help him sell off all the natural gas he holds.

As far as the increase in production under Obama goes, again that's due to leases released, and other policies under Bush. I mean if they're going to blame Bush for everything that goes wrong, surely they can give him a little credit when something goes right.

AZRWinger · #28 (**permalink**) 04-19-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

No. Teddy bought in to poor, contaminating and dangerous practices going on with virtually ALL meat producers. He had an immediate inspection ---

FMIA & Pure Food and Drug Act came out of those efforts.
The acts "also gave the government broad jurisdiction over food in interstate commerce."

WIKI source is well cited.

So a social worker and a labor unionist tour a slaughterhouse only to report "shocking" conditions. Gee what a surprise. Where was the expertise in food manufacturing or sanitation? Expertise in social and labor issues maybe but the issue is food manufacturing sanitation.

As I pointed out earlier TR's increased food regulation penalizes small producers more than large producers. Small producers have smaller localized markets far more sensitive to the perception of adulterated food than a large producer with a large market. But the important thing is what the sovial worker thinks.

Infidel Dog · #29 (**permalink**) 04-20-2012, 01:24 AM

It could have been my imagination, but I could have sworn I saw a post here repeating the bogus claim again that Obama had something to do with the increase in energy production.

The post is gone now, but it inspired me to research so now I'll post links so I'll know where to look just in case they want to say it again.

I say Obama had nothing to do with the increase in energy production during his term.

Obama?s Fuzzy Oil Production Math - Amy Harder - NationalJournal.com

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial...rt_2011_07.pdf

Under Obama, Federal Oil and Gas Production Is Down 40%

Surprise! Wind and Solar On The Fast Track | The Political Operative

U.S. Oil Production Increases In Spite of Team Obama?s Best Efforts

US Oil Production – Should Obama Take Credit for Increase?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode