perunapower Wrote:I was talking about legislators, not some uneducated nitwit who posted on DU. This isn't Venezuela, nor do most people want it to be.

Quote:"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence. -----Hillary Clinton

What do you think that would do? Now, on to the rest of your post.

RebelKev Wrote:

Quote:"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence. -----Hillary Clinton

What do you think that would do?

Cause Oil companies to move their profits offshore, and compensate their accountants even more for shielding the profits. Meanwhile, they will buy illiquid corporate assets like art to ALSO shield the profits, yet the value of the company would go up anyway, increasing shareholder value without recording "profits".

Been there... done that... got the t-shirt

Sure, Worldcomm and Enron got caught, but don't think that thousands of other companies weren't doing the identical things.

RebelKev Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:I was talking about legislators, not some uneducated nitwit who posted on DU. This isn't Venezuela, nor do most people want it to be.

Quote:"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence. -----Hillary Clinton

What do you think that would do? Now, on to the rest of your post.

I believe she's referring to a windfall profit tax and that's not nationalization, no matter how you spin it. Not that I'm in favor of windfall profit taxes either.

Nationalization would be "I want to take control of the oil companies and force capacity up and lower oil prices." That's what Venezuela does. That's not what Clinton is talking about.

Hambone10 Wrote:Oil is certainly higher, but the problem is the falling dollar.

In May 05, Oil was 40 Euro/barrel. Today it is 73 Euro Compare that to the dollar. In May 05, oil was $50/bbl. Today its $120.

When you can solve the economic and expected disparities that allow someone from Guatamala to come to the US, earn less than $10/hour, yet have enough money to live while sending enough money back to Guatamale so that THEY can live... yet $10/hour x 40 hrs/week x 50 weeks, or $20,000/year isn't enough for an American to live on.

I'm not blaming the American who has been told his whole life what he is entitled to... I'm just telling you that there are PLENTY of people in this world, and many right here in THIS country living "reasonably" (by their definition) at significantly less than what our politicians say is a "minimum" living wage. Falling currency addresses that issue. Until that normalizes, we will continue to pay more for oil in dollar terms.

Dollar plays into the rise in oil but not to the extent that you place it. If you look at the dollar index overlapped on the oil price chart for the last year you will see that the dollar is down 14% while oil is up 109%. The commodity bubble is just that a bubble and like all other bubbles it will eventually pop. The G7 is also beginning to talk up the dollar and I think you will see that it has bottomed out and a lot of speculators are beginning to bet on a dollar rebound. That will hurt our exports but help with the price of gas. China and India will of course put another couple million cars on the roads in the next couple of years so that will not exactly cut the demand for oil.

The answers are staring our politicians right in the face but true to form they are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting until it is a full blown crisis to react. We should of been planning for this during the 90's when oil was $12 barrel but we did not. Most economist by the late 90's saw the writing on the wall of a growing economy in China, India and other markets that would drive up the price of oil. We did nothing and now it is coming back to bite us on the butt. We have historically paid the lowest price for gas of any non OPEC country in the world and that caused Americans to think cheap gas was a birth right.

What are your answers Shorebuc? I've always been of the thought that ANWR's like a commodity in the bank. When oil was cheap why would you sell on the cheap. I think it's overexposed by the right. IT WOULD NOT have the effect Reb dreams of. I'm curious. The answers lie in many layers. You would get the most bang out of conservation. What say you?

BTW...........

I could care less about drilling in ANWR. We should drill there any the royalties go to pay off the debt. We should start selling off some of the strategic preserve as well. Proceeds from that fund a NASA like community to find a battery that can store large amounts of electricity. From there we use nuclear power to drive around our electric cars.

Machiavelli Wrote:What are your answers Shorebuc? I've always been of the thought that ANWR's like a commodity in the bank. When oil was cheap why would you sell on the cheap. I think it's overexposed by the right. IT WOULD NOT have the effect Reb dreams of. I'm curious. The answers lie in many layers. You would get the most bang out of conservation. What say you?

I think we need short term and long term solutions to our problems. I think ANWR is a no brainer just on the revenue it would produce alone for Alaska and the Federal Government. I also think the Eastern portion of the Gulf of Mexico should be opened up for drilling. We have a ton of natural gas off our coastlines so we need to utilize that. We should partner up with Canada to build a pipeline if necessary from their oil sand fields in Alberta to Montana where we could build new refineries. Montana has 120 billion tons of coal and is actively researching clean coal synthetic fuel conversion so maybe they could incoporate those refineries with those to be used with the Alberta oil sands. Montana has the liquid oil equivalent to 1/4 of the entire Middle East and that is just one state of the many we have we large coal deposits.

End of the day we need a Manhattan style program where the government is willing to award $10-25 Billion plus to the individuals or companies that can come up with some solutions to our energy needs. We need to realize that the enviornmentalist might not like all the solutions and the big oil companies might not like all the solutions but we need to put the lobbying groups aside and do what is best for America. IMHO I think the answer is a hybrid of more drilling, conservation, 2-3 cafe standards to help the refineries instead of the multiple flavors they are responsible for, maybe even exploring going just diesel. Europeans have diesel engines that can get 65mpg+. We need more nuclear power, solar power, etc.. we need to declare ethanol a failure in its current form and dump it entirely or move to another formula other then corn. I think everything including synthetic oil from coal should be on the table. We have all the resources we need right here or in North America/South America to stay out of the Middle East forever.

ShoreBuc Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Oil is certainly higher, but the problem is the falling dollar.

In May 05, Oil was 40 Euro/barrel. Today it is 73 Euro Compare that to the dollar. In May 05, oil was $50/bbl. Today its $120.

When you can solve the economic and expected disparities that allow someone from Guatamala to come to the US, earn less than $10/hour, yet have enough money to live while sending enough money back to Guatamale so that THEY can live... yet $10/hour x 40 hrs/week x 50 weeks, or $20,000/year isn't enough for an American to live on.

I'm not blaming the American who has been told his whole life what he is entitled to... I'm just telling you that there are PLENTY of people in this world, and many right here in THIS country living "reasonably" (by their definition) at significantly less than what our politicians say is a "minimum" living wage. Falling currency addresses that issue. Until that normalizes, we will continue to pay more for oil in dollar terms.

Dollar plays into the rise in oil but not to the extent that you place it. If you look at the dollar index overlapped on the oil price chart for the last year you will see that the dollar is down 14% while oil is up 109%. The commodity bubble is just that a bubble and like all other bubbles it will eventually pop. The G7 is also beginning to talk up the dollar and I think you will see that it has bottomed out and a lot of speculators are beginning to bet on a dollar rebound. That will hurt our exports but help with the price of gas. China and India will of course put another couple million cars on the roads in the next couple of years so that will not exactly cut the demand for oil.

The answers are staring our politicians right in the face but true to form they are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting until it is a full blown crisis to react. We should of been planning for this during the 90's when oil was $12 barrel but we did not. Most economist by the late 90's saw the writing on the wall of a growing economy in China, India and other markets that would drive up the price of oil. We did nothing and now it is coming back to bite us on the butt. We have historically paid the lowest price for gas of any non OPEC country in the world and that caused Americans to think cheap gas was a birth right.

Without addressing any of your other points....

I believe your use of the dollar index is misplaced. The dollar index is a somewhat arbitrary proxy for global economic activity... not a currency that people can use. Oil is denominated in dollars... China's currency is pegged to the dollar. The rise and fall of the dollar is integral to the price of oil.

The Euro is the worlds SECOND leading currency, and the dollar has fallen by roughly 50% against it. With that fact in mind, and the dollar index being only down 14%, does it really make sense to you that the yen, the pound, the Canadian Dollar the Swedish Krona and the Swiss Frank are "worthy" of cutting the under-performance of the dollar by 2/3rds as it relates to the price of oil??

Hambone10 Wrote:

ShoreBuc Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Oil is certainly higher, but the problem is the falling dollar.

In May 05, Oil was 40 Euro/barrel. Today it is 73 Euro Compare that to the dollar. In May 05, oil was $50/bbl. Today its $120.

When you can solve the economic and expected disparities that allow someone from Guatamala to come to the US, earn less than $10/hour, yet have enough money to live while sending enough money back to Guatamale so that THEY can live... yet $10/hour x 40 hrs/week x 50 weeks, or $20,000/year isn't enough for an American to live on.

I'm not blaming the American who has been told his whole life what he is entitled to... I'm just telling you that there are PLENTY of people in this world, and many right here in THIS country living "reasonably" (by their definition) at significantly less than what our politicians say is a "minimum" living wage. Falling currency addresses that issue. Until that normalizes, we will continue to pay more for oil in dollar terms.

Dollar plays into the rise in oil but not to the extent that you place it. If you look at the dollar index overlapped on the oil price chart for the last year you will see that the dollar is down 14% while oil is up 109%. The commodity bubble is just that a bubble and like all other bubbles it will eventually pop. The G7 is also beginning to talk up the dollar and I think you will see that it has bottomed out and a lot of speculators are beginning to bet on a dollar rebound. That will hurt our exports but help with the price of gas. China and India will of course put another couple million cars on the roads in the next couple of years so that will not exactly cut the demand for oil.

The answers are staring our politicians right in the face but true to form they are sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting until it is a full blown crisis to react. We should of been planning for this during the 90's when oil was $12 barrel but we did not. Most economist by the late 90's saw the writing on the wall of a growing economy in China, India and other markets that would drive up the price of oil. We did nothing and now it is coming back to bite us on the butt. We have historically paid the lowest price for gas of any non OPEC country in the world and that caused Americans to think cheap gas was a birth right.

Without addressing any of your other points....

I believe your use of the dollar index is misplaced. The dollar index is a somewhat arbitrary proxy for global economic activity... not a currency that people can use. Oil is denominated in dollars... China's currency is pegged to the dollar. The rise and fall of the dollar is integral to the price of oil.

The Euro is the worlds SECOND leading currency, and the dollar has fallen by roughly 50% against it. With that fact in mind, and the dollar index being only down 14%, does it really make sense to you that the yen, the pound, the Canadian Dollar the Swedish Krona and the Swiss Frank are "worthy" of cutting the under-performance of the dollar by 2/3rds as it relates to the price of oil??

The chart I saw was on CNBC the other morning and was just a chart for the past year. It did not cover the decline of the dollar 50% against the Euro but it would be interesting to see a chart showing the pace of that decline vs the rise in oil. I was just pointing out the obvious that the dramatic rise in oil has outpaced the decline of the dollar. The value of the dollar clearly plays into it but the dollar vs the euro decline during the past year has not been that great while the price of oil rising has.

The gas tax holiday might not help the average commuting Joe, but it will hugely help the trucking industry and their voting drivers. It's not as bad an idea as most here have made it out to be.

perunapower Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:No one is trying to destroy the oil industry. Quit sensationalizing and exaggerating.

Really?

DUmmies want to nationalize the oil industry

I was talking about legislators, not some uneducated nitwit who posted on DU. This isn't Venezuela, nor do most people want it to be.

15 cents a gallon doesn't sound that bad to me.

cb4029 Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:No one is trying to destroy the oil industry. Quit sensationalizing and exaggerating.

Really?

DUmmies want to nationalize the oil industry

I was talking about legislators, not some uneducated nitwit who posted on DU. This isn't Venezuela, nor do most people want it to be.

15 cents a gallon doesn't sound that bad to me.

It is when 47% lives on less than $2 per day.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/c...ou_862.pdf

perunapower Wrote:It is when 47% lives on less than $2 per day.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/c...ou_862.pdf

Thank you. I was going to post something, but noticed you're words were exactly what I was going to post.

CB, everything is relative.

Machiavelli Wrote:What are your answers Shorebuc? I've always been of the thought that ANWR's like a commodity in the bank. When oil was cheap why would you sell on the cheap. I think it's overexposed by the right. IT WOULD NOT have the effect Reb dreams of. I'm curious. The answers lie in many layers. You would get the most bang out of conservation. What say you?

I didn't limit it to ANWR. We need to drill all over this country. We need to buy more oil from Alberta's Oil Sands, but these new environmental standards prohibit a lot of it because it's not as "environmentally" clean as raw crude. We need to build more refineries. We need to build more nuclear power facilities.

All of this talk of oil independence can be achieved right here in the states. The question you NEED to be asking is, why aren't we doing it? Doesn't seem like anyone on the left OR the right is taking it seriously. Yes, gas is expensive, but to blame the gas companies is a tad disingenuous. They're in the business of making a profit. Talk about their profits all you want, but oil is now at 120 bucks a barrel and they don't control OPEC.

perunapower Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:I was talking about legislators, not some uneducated nitwit who posted on DU. This isn't Venezuela, nor do most people want it to be.

Quote:"The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence. -----Hillary Clinton

What do you think that would do? Now, on to the rest of your post.

I believe she's referring to a windfall profit tax and that's not nationalization, no matter how you spin it. Not that I'm in favor of windfall profit taxes either.

Nationalization would be "I want to take control of the oil companies and force capacity up and lower oil prices." That's what Venezuela does. That's not what Clinton is talking about.

So....with that, she wants to tax them out of business. That sound American to you? To use taxes from a company and divert it to another company or technology that'll eventually drive them out of business?

RebelKev Wrote:So....with that, she wants to tax them out of business. That sound American to you? To use taxes from a company and divert it to another company or technology that'll eventually drive them out of business?

No, it doesn't. That is why I don't like the windfall profit tax idea.

I do believe that it would be very wise for the oil giants to invest in new technologies because the world is going to shift away from petroleum-based fuels and they are going to be lose out big if they aren't at the forefront. It's smart business. If you know that your industry will start to vanish, you get involved in another industry to make that transition smoother. What could be better for an oil giant than to get involved in than alternative fuels?

Reduction in the theft of my wages is not a reason to be happy....I advocate the elimination of ALL governmental theft.

perunapower Wrote:I do believe that it would be very wise for the oil giants to invest in new technologies because the world is going to shift away from petroleum-based fuels and they are going to be lose out big if they aren't at the forefront. It's smart business. If you know that your industry will start to vanish, you get involved in another industry to make that transition smoother. What could be better for an oil giant than to get involved in than alternative fuels?

I agree, but that should be a decision made by those companies. I do, however, understand you know that as well.

RebelKev Wrote:

perunapower Wrote:I do believe that it would be very wise for the oil giants to invest in new technologies because the world is going to shift away from petroleum-based fuels and they are going to be lose out big if they aren't at the forefront. It's smart business. If you know that your industry will start to vanish, you get involved in another industry to make that transition smoother. What could be better for an oil giant than to get involved in than alternative fuels?

I agree, but that should be a decision made by those companies. I do, however, understand you know that as well.

OH NO!!!!...You mean MOMMY govt. cant mandate that change?....WE ARE DOOMED!!!!!

Chrysler announced today that they're starting up a program where new car buyers over the next month will be tied into a gas card program where their gas prices are capped at the next three years at $2.99 a gallon (if you're driving 12,000 miles or fewer a year).

I like imaginative ideas like this to both counter the rising gas prices and encouraging people to drive less. How about cities allowing people to work four day work weeks or do more working at home? Or government subsidies for carpooling - I think that's a better use of government money than a gas tax holiday.

The bottom line is people still drive too much and we're just all sitting stuck in traffic anyway. What are gas prices in Europe these days anyway? They used to be $3-4 a gallon several years ago. Are they now $5-6 a gallon?