shh don't tell gene about china he thinks that the only country using oil is the USA and thus there is a glut of oil on the market.

I'm hoping you are joking. So is kinda our point. all politicians (even the retired ones!) still play the game.

Oh, man, he wasn't joking. Daniel, lighten up. If this ain't fun it's just not worth doing. God knows we're only preaching to ourselves.

You're funny. Funny LOOKING. Daniel, that was a joke. I feel now I must spell it out. And it was you who blamed Carter for the rising oil prices, unless I misread the thread.

Which is possible. Sigh. Everyone's ignoring my Christmas song. Guess I'll have to ask the chipmunks to do it.

no it was me.


i got that idea off the web.


the government tried to control the price of gas saying that the oil companies could only have so much profit off of the oil in the USA. this left the door open for unlimited profit from outside sources. i may not have this comletely right i am going by memory. but there is a link in one of genes threads to the source.

Well, hmmm, this is not an area I'm up on. You have to shiver at the thought of government sticking their nose into price control, however, when you see Oil companies raping people during a crisis, you understand the thought process. I think an argument can also be made as a result of the lack of infrastructure support and heavy regulation of oil exploration/drilling. Though, I think it's not a bad thing to have that oversight. I side with the Dems on that. I do think that our ideals have conflicted, causing demand to outstrip production, driving up prices.

I also think it's a bad thing in the short term, but a good thing (perhaps) in the long term. I think the development of alternate fuels (such as wind) (I just saw a report on a AIR powered car, 0 emmissions, being developed in France -- let's call it the 'freedom mobile')is the key, and with the rising oil prices alternate energy is being developed for market at an unprecedented rate.

That said, I can afford to take a long term, pragmatic approach: I don't have to worry about if I can afford to heat my house, put gas in the tank to get to work, or other common issues. I just saw a study where the rising gas prices disproportianately affect the middle and lower classes over the highest income earners. Not that I earn tons, but I have other sources, currently, that keep my worries low. So, I can preach lofty ideals.

It's very different for the average joe, I suspect. And this administratin seems to give lip service to high fuel prices but does little by way of action.

the only way it is 0 emmissions is if you hand pump it. otherwise what little electric is probable being powered by a coal or oil power station in the usa.

actually, no. It uses compressed air. It comes in two models, a hybred similar to the Prius and a 0 emmissions vehicle running on compressed air. Now, obviously, the air must be compressed (ie, if it comes from a commercial compressor to fill it up, which plugs in, or cylinders, which need filled somehow) - - but the car itself is 0 emmissions.

To split hairs about how the cylinders are filled, at this juncture, seems a bit extreme. Pehaps the electric generated to fill the cylinders come from a wind harvest farm? What then? Or a solar field.

Solar is also coming a long way (and still has a long way to go). A solar tower in Spain can power a small town. Give it 20 years, and I think the argument will change. 20 years ago, huge solar panels were needed to fill a flash light battery.

In the mid-term, I think solar power combined with plug-in hybrids are going to be the way.

They have recently started production of extremely cheap solar panels that can practically be painted on.  One can imagine most new construction in 20 years being coated with the nano-solar cells they're producing.

Then, our plugin-hybrid cars can get their juice from the house via solar panels. 

It won't eliminate green house gasses -- the cars won't be 100% emission free and houses won't be totally off the grid (which in the US means coal) and we'll still have natural gas usage. But it would mean a pretty dramatic decrease in our use of fossil fuels.

How totally cool is that? I've seen that research, too. We have to start someplace to get to the finish line.

why not from their own paint job.

well, actually, the French engineer managed to create some sort of an hybrid. You compress the air while using the regular engine, and when the air tank is full, you run on compressed air.

You can last 600 miles on a single tank. Nice, eh?

Yup. However, in fairness, my prius goes about 500 on a tank of gas (at least on the highway). My thought is though, that in 10 years my Prius will be seen as a gas guzzler.

For the record, I love it. We've gotten off subject, though, but it's nice to talk about something other than Bushy boy.

Where I live there is a controversy surrounding wind power. I'm fairly left of center on this, though, I say build the little buggers I think they are cool looking. But my neighbors disagree and I see their points.
M

As for oil, I am no economist. But I know this: it is in W's interest (and the lobbyists who support him) to keep price up. He is strangely silent on the issue and has shown no leadership. It's bad when Venezuela can out manuever him politically on this issue.

May I go off on a tangent?  I am an economist.

The high oil prices are only in the best interest of one interest group.  AL Gore and Crew.  And the reason is simple and why neither you nor I drive a Rolls.  Higher prices means less consuming and searches for alternative energy sources.  It is not in the interest of oil companies (or their shills) to keep the prices up for the very reasons the GW faith does want it.  They will lose customers and markets.

The shill of Oil Prices, Oil Men and Bush is just that - a shill.  If the oil companies were actually running things, then the price would be below $70/barrell (just below) as that would be high enough to reap some great profits, but too low to make other energy alternatives financially viable - and would not be a cause of conservation (the GW faith would always want that - but they would not practice it and neither would the rest of the people).

Back to your regularly scheduled shrub adulation.

That sounds coherent, not shrill.
I suspect, though, a monster got away from the oil companies, stomping around the room and making everyone miserable. Now, I suspect, they don't know quite what to do: now you see BP advertising green. Still, fortunes are currently being made and in the short term, CEO's are lining their pockets. The real crazys are the Coal companies andvertising they are the green wave of the future. Members of my family who died of black lung may have had some issue with that -- just a guess.

What ,of course ,could happen is the same as the housing market. Are we seeing a bubble in oil prices? It's an interesting idea. Fear and perception drive oil prices as much as anything (or so it seems) -- what was driving the housing market? And, I'd agree with you even more except It seems the oil companies always seem to have some reason to raise gas prices during, say, Labor day, and give some confoluted explanation about ghosts in Costa Rica as the justification.

To the average joe, in this case me, it seems like they ain't to worried about the long term, the little money hungry gluttons. And like most gluttons, I think what you're saying is: they better watch out for diabetes.

Are we seeing a bubble in oil prices?

That is the billion dollar question (as in if you can accurately answer it - you can make your fortune!).  I dont think so - at least not yet.  The demand pressure is too high and instead of the Oil companies - I think OPEC are the ones lining their pockets and thinking short term - keeping them up there.  IN reality, oil companies have less control over the supply than OPEC does.  And they are the ones really reaping the big bucks (the Oil companies get some of the dough - but still have to pay OPEC).

With the Global Warming crew hot to trot, Arabs buying half billion dollar planes for their pleasure, and Chavez buying friends, I dont think any of them thinking past today.

and what influence do you think OPEC places on the Bush administration, if any?

none


opec is trying to punish us for backing isreal

and what influence do you think OPEC places on the Bush administration, if any?

About the same as on any US President. Remember, Politics have friends of commonality, not true friends.  Only when the interests of 2 countries intersect are they friends.  OPEC (with the exception of Chavez) could care less if Hillary was in office over Bush I or II.

I would agree with you, except the Bush family has very close ties to Saudi Arabia. It's no secret the Saudis pressured OPEC on behalf of Bush to get oil prices down right before his last election, when it was becomming a hot button issue.

The Saudi ambassador even took credit for the increased OPEC production (and thus lower prices) in a letter to Bush (probably, no doubt, expecting to capitalize on the favor in the future).

and Indonesia payed Clinton to close down that soft coal mine in Utah.

Am I missing how that ties in with a prix fix price menu for oil?

there are only two sources of the soft non polluting coal in the world southern utah and indonisia.


so if your going to talk about people from other countries helping presidents get reelected.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Iraq-War-Map.png

Here is a link for a man of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this is not counting the attack coming from the Iraqi Kurdistan, which was somewhat major.

If no attack would have been commited on Iraq in 2003, a three-way attack from the north of Iraq/Turkey, the Gulf (with Kuwait as launching point) and Afghanistan would have been possible anyway.

The Iraqi Army have been no treath whatsoever against the highly-trained and equiped U.S. military, as I am sure that, right now, Iran cannot stand ground to ground in a conventional war against U.S.A., outside a regular invasion, which required a lot of manpower. The U.S. Army is not, have never been an army of invasion. It is an army made to beat the other country, not conquer it.

A non-invaded Iraq would have meant that Iran knew it would face America at the height of it's power. Both military (full infantry power) and politicly (America lost a lot of sympathy created by 9/11 because of what was largely perceived as an unjustified invasion)

When I look in a non-emotive way at the situation, I see that the USA won.. 'bout nothing. Ok, not nothing, but it lost much more than it gained. Seriously, you lost support in the EU. You allowed Iran to radicalise, and your regular U.S. trooper is spending 60% of it's active duty outshore, which is dangerously high. And to think about the psychological treath faced by these soldiers when they will finally return, I do not dare.

I would agree with you, except the Bush family has very close ties to Saudi Arabia. It's no secret the Saudis pressured OPEC on behalf of Bush to get oil prices down right before his last election, when it was becomming a hot button issue.

Again, as I say, no more than any other president.  Clinton took credit for similar pressure, and was known to crow about how he was such good friends with the Shieks.  They dont like Bush more than Clinton, they just like the American protection most of all.

A non-invaded Iraq would have meant that Iran knew it would face America at the height of it's power. Both military (full infantry power) and politicly (America lost a lot of sympathy created by 9/11 because of what was largely perceived as an unjustified invasion)

First, Iran was already radicalized (yes, that can be blamed on America too - in 1978), so that argument is not really relevant.

Second, before, during and after Iraq, Iran was thumbing its nose at both the UN and the US.  So how did we lose leverage with them?  Or even the rest of the world have any leverage with them?

And Third, Iran knows that its punishment does not require a single boot on the ground, and thus Iraq is not detracting anything from that threat.  They also think they know (and may be right) that the US does not have the stomach to use the necessary means to reign them in, and that is why they have been thumbing their nose, before, during and after.

As for the respect of the EU?  I guess that hurts a lot.  Like it hurt in 1939.  But then that respect magically re-appeared in 1942.  I wonder why???????

(Zoomba, where did you put those sarcasm tags?)