Oil @ $150 dollars a barrel

[FOTD]

Obscene: Shell profits up 25 percent on record high oil prices http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iftQ-7-T9grM4N1CDCNwSxyYla7Q

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Since having lived through the 40's to the present (as a buyer) I have been unable to recall any  item  that has not inflated a
100% or more during that period just quoted.  Is it possible for  you to cite what items we buy and use today that does not have the 100% -+ inflation status?

Even if you factor in a low inflation rate of 3 percent per year, prices in general WILL double in price in 60-plus years.

Yet, in my lifetime, I can definitely think of things that have become far cheaper as time wore on. Remember when videotape players were thousands of dollars? Now you can get them for less than $100. Remember the days of $500 DVD players? Those days are long gone. My first computer was $1,300 -- a basic desktop model. Now you can spend $500 for a desktop, and it will perform far better than its predecessor.

[shadows]

This last Saturday in rearranging the garage a person picked up a VCR that I had paid over $500 for and weighs about 5 times the ones on the market today,  Why has the price been reduced?  Simple, World trade of which we are falling behind in.

Several years ago I was associated with a group that one had worked with Kaiser industries and had developed a TV that was 4 inches thick that could be hung on the wall,  Kaiser claimed part ownership and demanded  $50 thousands dollars for an interested person to look at their interest.  As a go between I arranged for the $50 thousand interest money.  The person putting up the money said "OK you can take the sample and data to Japan and see how much it will  take to produce it."   I said no way



Remember this is the little country that hiked the price of scrap steel in the 30'  and destroyed our Navy at Pearl Harbor and the Battle Midway with a navy made from our scrap.

In the 30' China built steel smelters and rolling mills in their small cities.  They have driven the price of  scrap steel up to where a crushed car will bring $150.   Scrap copper purchases to make the items quoted hover around $1 a pound to make the items with cheap labor on today's market.   Even our penny is reaching the point where in today barter of exchange we must to look for other cheaper metals to produce the copper coins.

When we compare the reduction of prices in articles imported from China and other countries in the mid-east we are trying to compare a mustard seed to a watermelon.   Even with the reduced prices we are not paying for them in the world trade as the deficit is at 250 billion each year.   (divide that with our population)
The story on the calculators is a long story with a short ending.  Texas instrument took their contribution to calculators to Japan.
Like Faustus we are selling our souls to the devil but we gonna have a new arena.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Obscene: Shell profits up 25 percent on record high oil prices http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iftQ-7-T9grM4N1CDCNwSxyYla7Q

No one has denied they are making money, the point is - so what?

Why do you want the government to destroy anything that is successful?  People or companies, for some reason you are dead set on taking things away from people who have them.  I don't understand it.

[shadows]

Lets see government is reducing the interest rate on CD's another ¼ cent which increases the borrowing power of the wealthy and reduces the retirement value of the working poor that saved for retirement.  

There is some good news as seems unemployment has been reduced.   The wet backs that were taking those job our working poor didn't want, so they returned to their homelands because of pending legislation.  One could believe that those jobs the working poor didn't want to where now they are taking them.

It is hard to out figure any government not excluding Tulsa's.  I understand that a company is renting out floor space in their building and renting prime replacement space in our new glass cube building (called city hall) at a reduction of 80% of value.  Now if they bought the $75 some million dollars in tax exempted revenue bonds and collecting the interest,  how much will the taxpayers pay out in the next 10 years for them to occupy the chosen prime space ?    It would seem there is not a cash cow involved but a hold herd of them grazing on the city coffers downtown.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Lets see government is reducing the interest rate on CD's another ¼ cent which increases the borrowing power of the wealthy and reduces the retirement value of the working poor that saved for retirement.  

There is some good news as seems unemployment has been reduced.   The wet backs that were taking those job our working poor didn't want, so they returned to their homelands because of pending legislation.  One could believe that those jobs the working poor didn't want to where now they are taking them.

It is hard to out figure any government not excluding Tulsa's.  I understand that a company is renting out floor space in their building and renting prime replacement space in our new glass cube building (called city hall) at a reduction of 80% of value.  Now if they bought the $75 some million dollars in tax exempted revenue bonds and collecting the interest,  how much will the taxpayers pay out in the next 10 years for them to occupy the chosen prime space ?    It would seem there is not a cash cow involved but a hold herd of them grazing on the city coffers downtown.

Dont forget to factor in the 12 mill or so it would have taken to refurbish and repair the old city hall and other buildings.

[shadows]

Artist:

Lets see with a $1 dollar calculator (made in China) and the presumption that a no bid restoring estimate of the old city hall, where less that possibility 1% of the taxpayers has ever entered, it would have saved maybe a hundred million dollars.  

Imagine a taxpayer that is required to go to city hall looking for the city employees who are mingling among private business employees.  Then city employees would be easy to find in the coffee shops as private business make their employees account for all their time or it's a pink slip for them.

You would have the same problem with out-of-towners trying to decipher who is a city employee or who is a private employee.  Of course the mayor is entitled to the choice office available but would it have been cheaper to have rented her an office on the top floor of one of the high-rises. The typical city employees chief reason for employment is the pension, health insurance, above average pay and unsupervised duties.

Does one wonder why this type of government has failed in countries we have installed it in?

It doesn't  even take a calculator to count on ones fingers that the total cost of the farce will exceed over one hundred million dollars to impress who?  

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Artist:

Lets see with a $1 dollar calculator (made in China) and the presumption that a no bid restoring estimate of the old city hall, where less that possibility 1% of the taxpayers has ever entered, it would have saved maybe a hundred million dollars.  

Imagine a taxpayer that is required to go to city hall looking for the city employees who are mingling among private business employees.  Then city employees would be easy to find in the coffee shops as private business make their employees account for all their time or it's a pink slip for them.

You would have the same problem with out-of-towners trying to decipher who is a city employee or who is a private employee.  Of course the mayor is entitled to the choice office available but would it have been cheaper to have rented her an office on the top floor of one of the high-rises. The typical city employees chief reason for employment is the pension, health insurance, above average pay and unsupervised duties.

Does one wonder why this type of government has failed in countries we have installed it in?

It doesn't  even take a calculator to count on ones fingers that the total cost of the farce will exceed over one hundred million dollars to impress who?  

Looking for city employees?...

This may come as a shock to you, but there is this thing called an office,"look it up in google if you must". Then there is this other quite nifty concept called an appointment.

Oh, then there is this other notion of "meetings". You would be amazed at how many meetings happen with this government stuff. I have been to a lot of them for all kinds of different reasons and one thing I remember most was how incredibly inefficient and time wasting it was for people to have to drive from one building to the next, find parking, etc. for various meetings. Often people have several meetings in a day. I remember going to meetings in the Water Works building, then Hartford Building then City Hall and then at each meeting someone rushing in a bit late after having been at a previous meeting in a different building or having to rush off and drive to yet another meeting way off somewhere else. It was stupid, talk about a waste of time and money.  All of those places needed to be in the same building (and every place I mentioned and others now will be). Thaaaank goodness.

[RecycleMichael]

Shadows just hates city workers.

I say we double his water bill and stop picking up his trash. The policeman will write him a ticket and the fireman will spray water on him.

[shadows]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Shadows just hates city workers.

I say we double his water bill and stop picking up his trash. The policeman will write him a ticket and the fireman will spray water on him.

Did it ever occur that these people in city hall are not city workers but are employees of the city taxpayers to take care of the working poor's business in today's society.  Instead of them supporting the working poor they believe they are there to be supported by the working poor.

[shadows]

Artist:  I am aware of the numbers  of persons who attended meetings.  I have attended meeting where the total number attending could be counted on one's fingers including the news reporters.   The meeting on Friday afternoon were very short ones if you could find one.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You're right FOTD, I over reacted to your post.  I have edited my post accordingly.

Instead of a retroactive tax on success, increase the cost of access to publicly owned assets. They want new leases in the Gulf and are getting them at record bid prices.  Raking in billions for the fed.

Open up bidding to all who come off the coast of the #1 and #3 users of oil:  Florida and California.  The revenue for the states would be huge, the revenue for the fed equally.  Oil prices would fall.  The profits made on those fields get double taxed (at the wellhead and as a profit) and we create JOBS.

Same with Alaska.  Open it up to bidding.  By the time the field is developed we won't need a new pipeline because the Alaska pipeline will not be operate at capacity anyway.

THEN, take that money we receive in venture profits (selling un-utilized federal assets) and use it for alternative energy. Stream line nuclear power initiatives to provide a safe and viable alternative. Provide inducement prices and grants for viable alternative energy projects.  You want a viable electric car?  

Award a Federal Contract to buy 10,000 Federal Vehicles per year for the first 5 years for the first manufacturer who offers a vehicle that is:
1) Entirely Electric
2) 120 miles range (3 times the daily average)
3) Over night recharging
4) Meets federal safety standards
5) 70 MPH minimum top speed

Gear the contract so it must be manufactured in the USA.  $40,000 per vehicle for the first year.  $38, 36, 34, and finally $32,000 in the 5th year.  At the end of year 5 the winning patents expire and are public domain (the winning company should have leg up on the competition AND would have had a nice payoff anyway).

That would bring the price into the realm of reality for many people and hopefully funding the research and providing the demand for the start up.

That's $1.8 Billion over 5 years.   The government gets something, spurs industry, and encourages research in a direction we desire.  Inducement prizes work, with the buying power of the Fed as an inducement the American people get something for the money both as a purchase AND the result.

Those are the initiatives I would like to see.  Not taxing private interests because of success and other policies that just punish the status quo instead of inducing people to change it.

Yesterdays WSJ "Ahead of the Tape" column had an interesting take on an oil fix : HIGHER TAXES

10 cents ayear increase for 10 years on a gallon of gas to help offset the hurt to the working class. At $10 a gallon world wide, our taxes on consumption are far too low. Less demand for oil needs to be the driver for policy changes.

"Raising the tax would fight pollution and congestion, ease the federal budget deficit, add
urgency to the search forviable fossil fuel alternatives, and help reduce US addiction to foreign oil."..."Unfortunately, it doesn't win elections"....Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You're right FOTD, I over reacted to your post.  I have edited my post accordingly.

Instead of a retroactive tax on success, increase the cost of access to publicly owned assets. They want new leases in the Gulf and are getting them at record bid prices.  Raking in billions for the fed.

Open up bidding to all who come off the coast of the #1 and #3 users of oil:  Florida and California.  The revenue for the states would be huge, the revenue for the fed equally.  Oil prices would fall.  The profits made on those fields get double taxed (at the wellhead and as a profit) and we create JOBS.

Same with Alaska.  Open it up to bidding.  By the time the field is developed we won't need a new pipeline because the Alaska pipeline will not be operate at capacity anyway.

THEN, take that money we receive in venture profits (selling un-utilized federal assets) and use it for alternative energy. Stream line nuclear power initiatives to provide a safe and viable alternative. Provide inducement prices and grants for viable alternative energy projects.  You want a viable electric car?  

Award a Federal Contract to buy 10,000 Federal Vehicles per year for the first 5 years for the first manufacturer who offers a vehicle that is:
1) Entirely Electric
2) 120 miles range (3 times the daily average)
3) Over night recharging
4) Meets federal safety standards
5) 70 MPH minimum top speed

Gear the contract so it must be manufactured in the USA.  $40,000 per vehicle for the first year.  $38, 36, 34, and finally $32,000 in the 5th year.  At the end of year 5 the winning patents expire and are public domain (the winning company should have leg up on the competition AND would have had a nice payoff anyway).

That would bring the price into the realm of reality for many people and hopefully funding the research and providing the demand for the start up.

That's $1.8 Billion over 5 years.   The government gets something, spurs industry, and encourages research in a direction we desire.  Inducement prizes work, with the buying power of the Fed as an inducement the American people get something for the money both as a purchase AND the result.

Those are the initiatives I would like to see.  Not taxing private interests because of success and other policies that just punish the status quo instead of inducing people to change it.

Yesterdays WSJ "Ahead of the Tape" column had an interesting take on an oil fix : HIGHER TAXES

10 cents ayear increase for 10 years on a gallon of gas to help offset the hurt to the working class. At $10 a gallon world wide, our taxes on consumption are far too low. Less demand for oil needs to be the driver for policy changes.

"Raising the tax would fight pollution and congestion, ease the federal budget deficit, add
urgency to the search forviable fossil fuel alternatives, and help reduce US addiction to foreign oil."..."Unfortunately, it doesn't win elections"....Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw

Liberals are so funny!  We can apply this philosophy to everything and it is equally hilarious!

We could reduce cancer by taxing it!  I think a cancer tax would reduce the number of people who smoke and choose not to use sun-screen on the golf course!  

If we increased taxes on people who contract cancer by 10% for every year that they have cancer we could pay for more cancer research and encourage future generations not to engage in carcinogenic activities.

We could put an end to teen pregnancy by instituting a baby tax for everyone that is under 18.  Have a baby and lose 10% of your income for every year under the age of 18 you are.  

We could also put an end to other social ills with:
Homeless tax.
DUI tax.
Fat tax (oh! wait! California already proposed it).
and my personal favorite: Mean tax (if you are mean to me, the government takes away your shoes!)

News Flash:  Wild taxation causes problems, it doesn't solve them.  We have an example of how this works, it's called California.

[sauerkraut]

This oil mess is all because the democrats and enviromental wackos who won't let us drill in Alaska or off shore in the Gulf. We have over 100 BILLION barrels right here at home and would not need to import a single drop of oil. Opening up drilling in Alaska will also make many new jobs. There is no oil shortage it's all a political game. They just found a huge oil suppy in North Dakota but we can't drill for it. Another even bigger oil reserve was found off the coast of Rio near South America, that is said to have over 40 Billions Barrels of oil... The oil is here and it's all over the globe but it's being used to play games. Any alternative form of fuel will likely be used to play games by greedy folks. The power grid could not even handle everyone plugging in their electric cars every night, and electric companies can pull an "ENRON" and jack up electric rates making electric cars too expensive to drive.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

This oil mess is all because the democrats and enviromental wackos who won't let us drill in Alaska or off shore in the Gulf. We have over 100 BILLION barrels right here at home and would not need to import a single drop of oil. Opening up drilling in Alaska will also make many new jobs. There is no oil shortage it's all a political game. They just found a huge oil suppy in North Dakota but we can't drill for it. Another even bigger oil reserve was found off the coast of Rio near South America, that is said to have over 40 Billions Barrels of oil... The oil is here and it's all over the globe but it's being used to play games. Any alternative form of fuel will likely be used to play games by greedy folks. The power grid could not even handle everyone plugging in their electric cars every night, and electric companies can pull an "ENRON" and jack up electric rates making electric cars too expensive to drive.

Its not so much that the price of oil has gone up, its that the dollar has gone down. Also increased demand from developing countries is having a large influence.

Oil is priced globally. If the dollar falls and is, for example, half what it was a year ago... If I go on one of my shopping trips to Paris and want to buy something there, to me, its twice as much as it was. The price hasnt changed, my dollar is worth less. If I want to import that object from Paris, the price didnt change, the falling dollar makes it cost more.  

Americans are actually using less gas than they were. Refining capacity is up. Indeed there is plenty of oil, more oil than there was, more reserves, less use in the US... The dollar has fallen in value.  Add to that others in the world now have more money thus they want to buy oil and that jacks the price up as well. Even if we were to become entirely self sufficient with our own oil production and became oil exporters... the price would still increase as global demand increases.  

If the US currently produces about 7million barrels a day ( http://www.cfaia.com/faq_oil.cfm ) and is somehow able to even double that capacity using the reserves in Alaska and the Gulf, it still wont do any good. It would take time to get that oil coming out of the ground and refining capacity up, yet China alone is increasing its demand by around 1million barrels per year.

Even if the US became a net Oil exporter, the continued growth in developing countries would push up oil prices.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/04/11/iea-cuts-global-oil-demand-growth-forecast-by-most-in-7-years/