Bush's Administration Thinks Oil Prices Will Go Down!

OR: More News From the Out of Touch

"I think the price is above what's justified by the fundamentals of the marketplace," John Snow said. "It's out of line with the fundamentals, and there will be a movement back toward the fundamentals, which means a lower price."

John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury, is George Bush's point man on the economy who seems to think (noting the quote above) that oil is overvalued relative to the supply and demand in the worldwide economic system. The oil market this morning reacted to this revelation by rising by as much as another 1% and there is no sense among the traders that prices will slip any time in the near future. Once again we see Bush advisors who don't seem to understand the problems created by an increasingly tenuous and dangerous international situation.

It is interesting that Mr. Snow seems to be echoing the Saudis who are a seemingly broken record of "we will increase production, we will increase production, we will increase production." However the truth is that the Saudis and OPEC have seldom had U.S. interests in mind when it comes to the oil situation. Remember when OPEC said they wanted to produce to a oil target of between $20 and $25 per barrel?

Now, you should understand by now from living in a free market economy that when oil is over $50 that OPEC companies make twice as much money, right? I mean, does it make sense if you could sell your house for $200,000 that you would want to sell it for $100,000? How about a car company that sells you the new Porsche Boxster for $50,000 when someone will pay $100,000 for it?

A deeper problem exists though in the perception that the Bush administration has that government should simply be a tax reduction system. It was noted in the debates last week that Bush has not vetoed a spending bill in 4 years. It was not noted that tax reduction, at first good for the middle class in terms of the marriage penalty tax elimination has not helped the middle class since with the exception of those with large families. My own return increased by $40 last year.

Meanwhile, the government runs billions more into debt, increasingly lowering the dollar's value around the world and making oil even more expensive. But, the Bush administration got passed even more tax reductions for businesses just today.

When you look at the concept of government as a business it is not unlike any other. That is, it has a range of product and services and in order to be successful it must be responsive to the people that use it's products and services and to the shareholders (that is you and me).

The first key to success in that sense is respect for the taxpayer. But this administration, when challenged on the budget or on spending acts as if you are not entitled to your opinion. How dare you challenge the White House on the budget? Don't you know we are in a war? Don't you know that we are the boss and that you are just a user of governmental services?

You might get the idea that it is the citizen who is the terrorist when we don't give blind support to the Bush policies that have led us where we are. More and more economists tell us that oil prices over $50 is disasterous for us. More and more know that without cutting the deficit we will pass on trillions of dollars of debt to our grandchildren and wreak any chance of social security lasting much longer.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration is supposedly working on more tax cuts for W's political base, the ones with incomes over $200,000.

Does anyone see how disasterous this would be?

39,661 views 79 replies
Reply #1 Top
Now, you should understand by now from living in a free market economy that when oil is over $50 that OPEC companies make twice as much money, right? I mean, does it make sense if you could sell your house for $200,000 that you would want to sell it for $100,000? How about a car company that sells you the new Porsche Boxster for $50,000 when someone will pay $100,000 for it?  Love it! Great article.
Reply #2 Top
Nigeria and Sudan, two major problems to the Oil Market right now.

- GX
Reply #3 Top
Sure oil prices will drop soon, Dick Cheney will see to that within a week of the election. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's former employer, will release a glut of oil onto the marketthat it is currently stockpiling in Iraq. This glut will drive down prices worldwide and then George W. can step in and take all the credit. What's amazing is that Haliburton will lose some money right off the bat but if George W. is reelected they will more than double the money lost in the form of new no bid contracts and tax breaks designed by who else Dick and George.
Reply #4 Top
George W. does not care about the debt or the price of oil unless it creates problems for the wealthy of America. My book, Four More For George W? looks at the Bush policies, tracks their impact and predicts what will happen if they continue.

Bush would have us believe the deficit is because of 9/11 and the recent corporate problems. The truth is that in 1980 the debt was $909 Billion. When Reagan left office it was about $4 Trillion. When George W. took office it was $5.8 Trillion. Today it is $7.5 Trillion and if you look at OMB, the Bush budget projection has it at just short of $10 Trillion at the end of FY 2008 with a annual deficit of $250 Billion.

During the past 24 years the American Taxpayer has paid $6.5 Trillion in interest. That amount of money would have rebuilt the entire infastructure of America and provided financial stability for both Social Security and Medicare through most of the Babby Boomers years to come. When interest rates return to historic norms, the annual interest on the soon to be $10 Trillion national debt will take the money we will need to defend ourselves, educate our children, and provide for the retirement of the Babby Boomers. On top of all this George W. wants to make the tax cuts permamant which will tripple the loss in federal revenue over the current rate and drive us into a financial chrisis. Look at the data in my book and see what another term of George W. Bush will mean to America!
Reply #5 Top
I think time will prove Snow correct, actually. But PlatotheWise - assuming Cheney had the power to do that, which is an absurd slur BTW, why would he wait until after the election. Where's the political payoff in that?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #6 Top
My own return increased by $40 last year.


My own return ALSO happened to have increased last year...even though I made less money than the year before...hmmmmm
Reply #7 Top
George W. does not care about the debt or the price of oil unless it creates problems for the wealthy of America. My book, Four More For George W? looks at the Bush policies, tracks their impact and predicts what will happen if they continue.

Bush would have us believe the deficit is because of 9/11 and the recent corporate problems. The truth is that in 1980 the debt was $909 Billion. When Reagan left office it was about $4 Trillion. When George W. took office it was $5.8 Trillion. Today it is $7.5 Trillion and if you look at OMB, the Bush budget projection has it at just short of $10 Trillion at the end of FY 2008 with a annual deficit of $250 Billion.

During the past 24 years the American Taxpayer has paid $6.5 Trillion in interest. That amount of money would have rebuilt the entire infastructure of America and provided financial stability for both Social Security and Medicare through most of the Babby Boomers years to come. When interest rates return to historic norms, the annual interest on the soon to be $10 Trillion national debt will take the money we will need to defend ourselves, educate our children, and provide for the retirement of the Babby Boomers. On top of all this George W. wants to make the tax cuts permamant which will tripple the loss in federal revenue over the current rate and drive us into a financial chrisis. Look at the data in my book and see what another term of George W. Bush will mean to America!


I don't think Bush understands the impact of taxes or oil or his "actions". I really would like to believe that he knows whats going on, but somehow I find it unlikley. He doesn't even understand the complexity of a bill, thinking it is a simple yes or no. I'm a layman and I know this.
Reply #8 Top
"I don't think Bush understands the impact of taxes or oil or his "actions". I really would like to believe that he knows whats going on, but somehow I find it unlikley. He doesn't even understand the complexity of a bill, thinking it is a simple yes or no. I'm a layman and I know this. "


mm, bachelors from Yale, MBA from Harvard. Governer of Texas, President of the US. Sandy and jesusstayscrunchy and CrispE, though, can teach him a thing or two about economics, business, world affairs, etc. Hell, I guess anyone could be President, then, since all you have to do is espouse a particular ethos to be "shmart..."

Egotistical, overblown junk. Bush doesn't impose bills. Are all the folks passing the stuff you don't agree with in Congress stupid, too?

Discussions like this remind me of Beavis and Butthead. They couldn't figure out why so many other people were stupid, either.
Reply #9 Top
Grim Xiozan:

Well, I understand Nigeria and wonder when we will start hearing about the Al Qaeda influence there. The Sudan isn't really that influential to the situation as far as I know. I would appreciate a link to something if you have one.

I think the problem is bigger than the work stoppages both abroad and in the Gulf. The real problem with oil is that China is very competitive (as well as India) for resources, their plants are relatively inefficient and they have lots of money to burn.
Reply #10 Top
PlatotheWise:

The White House would already have to have released oil to affect the price at the pump significantly and the action would be so obvious that people would laugh as they were pulling the switch to elect Kerry. There is so much information now about what is going on that if even that thought were breathed in the "oil pits" in Chicago the price would drop $5 a barrel.

What might happen is that the White House would "float" that they were considering opening the Alaskan reserves. However, I doubt either will happen because the White House's first loyalty is to the businesses that are making the money on the oil. So high oil prices to them are a good way to "encourage conservation" by us gas-guzzling Kia owners! Hehehe.
Reply #11 Top
COL Gene:

I think you and I are on the same page when it comes to the deficit and government spending. I hope you got a chance to look at Paul Kasriel's work (from my previous article). It really is good stuff.

Interestingly, if you consider that oil was $25 when Bush came in and the Euro/dollar exchange rate was 0.85/1 and now it is 1.24/1 you can see that $53 per barrel is actually when considering the exchange really $77?! Of course, few if any are talking about that little problem in loss of purchasing power.
Reply #12 Top
Daiwa:

If Snow were correct about the market, oil should be at $25 per barrel since he has been "negotiating" with OPEC and the Saudis for quite a while, always says that prices will equalize and that the fundamentals favor price reduction. He said that at $35, at $40, at $45, at $50...... You get the idea he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Reply #13 Top
Myrrander:

Well, we only had taxable income of $60,000 but had no children to claim. That wouldn't put me and my wife into W's elite base.
Reply #14 Top
Sandy2:

First, I wanted to thank you for your article "5 Things I would do as President" I really enjoyed it. I don't think you're naive as your articles show.

This is one area that I don't think Bush knows much about. (He didn't even know he received dividends from that timber company.) These folks have so much money they have to have accountants for their accountants to figure it all out.
Reply #15 Top
BakerStreet:

Yeah...all we have on our side of the argument are the facts. I guess resume is more important to you. Gosh, would you mind paying my gas and electric and gasoline bill this winter? Because I know the Yale man is probably going to cost me even more than I paid last year for it.

You know very well, BTW, that Bush has pushed for tax cuts, has had ties to Saudi corporations and has no impetus to save you or me money on anything. Bush defends the deficit and refuses to veto spending.

Not only does he not make much of a "compassionate conservative" in this regard, he doesn't make much of a Republican either.
Reply #16 Top
I think when people like us sit around and pretend we know more than the President, who to some obviously doesn't understand anything, yes, maybe people need to be reminded who they are talking about.

I don't have a problem with you or anyone else differing with the policies, but it's a litle sad to pretend that they differ because they don't understand or aren't as knowledgable as you are...
Reply #17 Top
Sure oil prices will drop soon, Dick Cheney will see to that within a week of the election. Halliburton, Dick Cheney's former employer, will release a glut of oil onto the marketthat it is currently stockpiling in Iraq.


Hailburton is a Logistics Company that builds oil pipes, drill the intial holes and such not BUY OR SELL OIL, jackarse. Now if he was apart of Exxon, Mobil, Citgo, Shell, or Texaco than something would be going on there.

Don't take my word for it check out their site http://www.halliburton.com/

Well, I understand Nigeria and wonder when we will start hearing about the Al Qaeda influence there. The Sudan isn't really that influential to the situation as far as I know. I would appreciate a link to something if you have one.


http://news.google.com/news?q=Sudan+Oil&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

Sudan, contrary to some people's belief, is an oil producing nation with the problems right now in Sudan it also hurts oil prices.

Though your point about China is also good as well, I am not sure about India, though I would not rule out Russia in the oil prices as well.

So you have China, Russia, Nigeria, Iraq, and Sudan that are all affecting the oil price.

- GX
Reply #18 Top
Grim:

I looked at the links but while sanctions have been "threatened" (what a concept that is) I don't think production has fallen because of the Darfur situation. OR did I miss something?
Reply #19 Top
Halliburton does in fact drill. In their own words:
The Drilling and Formation Evaluation segment is primarily involved in drilling and evaluating the formations related to borehole construction and initial oil and gas formation evaluation.

The products and services in this segment incorporate integrated technologies, which offer synergies related to drilling activities and data gathering. The segment consists of drilling services, including directional drilling and measurement-while-drilling/logging-while-drilling; logging services; and drill bits.
Reply #20 Top
Well, well, well.

Seems China has it hands on Sudanese Oil so it will be because of China not Sudan, BUT with the problems in Sudan that could effect China which in turn effects Oil Prices.

Moreover, the United States faces a global competitor-China-that has an active place in Sudan's oil sector and has been pursuing a toehold elsewhere in the continent's oil wealth. Chinese participation in Africa has been accompanied in some cases by Chinese military delegations selling arms, a situation of some concern given the proclivity towards ethnic and political strife in some key oil producing countries in the region. East Asia frequently pulls one million bpd from West Africa to feed its growing appetite for high quality West African crude.

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2004/saudi-relations-interest-01-06.html

If Rebels 'threaten' the Oil Production which they will probably do in order to strike back at the Government of Sudan.

Only time will tell us if the Rebels attack or do not attack Oil Production, but if Rebels don't have a habit of attacking Oil Production than Nigeria must be an exception to that rule.

- GX
Reply #21 Top
Halliburton does in fact drill. In their own words:


Semantics my dear Blogic, semantics is what you are debating with me on that subject.

I took drilling oil as mining oil which in turn that Company sells the Oil, Haliburton does not do that. Haliburton does not sell oil so therefore they have no stockpile that they could sell to drop oil prices now do they?

- GX
Reply #22 Top
BakerStreet:

I would agree with you on some matters that the President has at his right hand information that we will never see (or at least for 25 years). However, that doesn't give him wisdom (which many think he does not show on economic policy). I know many sources for economics that I would trust long before the White House and most are Republican.

I will not hold "reverence" for any political figure. I criticised Clinton on Somalia and his romantic liasons and Carter for his wishy washy "I can't make a decision" on Iran to name 2 Democrats for example. Do I think they had more information than me? Sure. Did they show good judgment? Not a chance.

Mr. Bush doesn't have a clue about economics, never running a business successfully and doing even worse in the White House.
Reply #23 Top
You know, Baker, I just read your post where you claim that your facts are always smooth and tight. And yet the best you can give me is that I'm stupid? Yes, yes, tout Mr. "C" average's Yale degree and his MBA. THEN let's talk about his record in business after that. This cat couldn't even keep Arbusto, et al. running, but oh, yes, of course he can run the country. Many of Bush's programs in Texas (including tax cuts and environmental policy) have been changed, rolled back, or just plain dumped. Would it even be possible to get a reply from you without an ad hominem attack? Or are you just going to post another "what's up with all these shitty bloggers" post. Because it seems that those kinds of articles only come out when people start disagreeing with a blogger who has been "on site" longer than the others.

Now, I looked at my tax returns just before I started typing this. I paid more last year than the year before, despite having less income. Do I hold congress responsible for this as well as the President? You betcha.

Hell, I guess anyone could be President, then


Well, as long as they're 35 years of age, a natural born citizen of the USA, and happen to win enough electoral votes, sure anyone could be President.

Goddamn me for a naive liberal! I keep thinking that if somebody thinks they have a better idea, then maybe they should talk about it!

Reply #24 Top

Reply #23 By: Myrrander - 10/11/2004 6:54:43 PM
You know, Baker, I just read your post where you claim that your facts are always smooth and tight. And yet the best you can give me is that I'm stupid? Yes, yes, tout Mr. "C" average's Yale degree and his MBA. THEN let's talk about his record in business after that. This cat couldn't even keep Arbusto, et al. running, but oh, yes, of course he can run the country. Many of Bush's programs in Texas (including tax cuts and environmental policy) have been changed, rolled back, or just plain dumped. Would it even be possible to get a reply from you without an ad hominem attack? Or are you just going to post another "what's up with all these shitty bloggers" post. Because it seems that those kinds of articles only come out when people start disagreeing with a blogger who has been "on site" longer than the others.

Now, I looked at my tax returns just before I started typing this. I paid more last year than the year before, despite having less income. Do I hold congress responsible for this as well as the President? You betcha.


Sorry but running a company and running a country aren't even on the same ocean let alone the same boat.
Reply #25 Top
Actually, Halliburton -- through it's KBR subsidiary -- can both produce and sell oil:
The contract also gives KBR the right to produce and sell oil inside the country of Iraq. Remarkably, this was a closed-door handout granted to KBR without bidding.
So to reverse your logic, Halliburton could have a stockpile they could sell to drop oil prices. I don't have any stand on whether they do in fact have one.