Point out where I was wrong.

5/1/2008 1:00:13 AM

Uh, I believe I just did. Should I type it bigger?

5/1/2008 1:01:24 AM

Ah I meant to addresss capymca and not jbtilley. This is a mistake of mine.

Now point out where I was wrong on any point of actual content. You can't do it because I'm not wrong, whereas you are massively wrong with every word you dribble onto this message board.

5/1/2008 1:03:07 AM

Yet more bluster. Wonderful. I'm totally sure someone who could go on for an entire page railing against the wrong person can be taken as an unquestioned authority on who spews total nonsense. Especially when the person accused of nonsense is the one pointing out your errors.

Look, your reading comprehension is just incredibly poor. Perhaps instead of blustering and bragging you should take a little bit more time just reading.

5/1/2008 1:07:56 AM

If I mistook you for TreeTwista this whole time, would that change anything about the content of what I've said?

The answer is no. I am pretty much right about this shit because I know about it and you don't. Continue posting lies on the Wolf Web.

5/1/2008 1:10:00 AM

Given the fact that your entire premise for going off on this person's innocuous question was premised upon their identity, it sure would seem to make a difference. Yet instead of acknowledging that you were totally out of line, you continue to bluster and call your opponents ignorant, liars, and boast of your own knowledge.

Right. We're all so sure of the knowledge of someone who will rail against the wrong person for an innocuous question for an entire page and then proceed to bluster about it when called upon it, and simply relies on calling his opponents "stupid" and "ignorant" rather than even reading their arguments completely.

5/1/2008 1:12:39 AM

The identity of the person is actually irrelevant since I don't know who capycma or jbtilley are, so I used no particular feature of either in the content of what I was saying.

"an innocuous question"

lollllllllll

You are ridiculous and it's embarrassing to read your worthless, false posts.

5/1/2008 1:15:54 AM

His question was a sarcastic cut which then opened the doors to ignorant white knights such as yourself.

You are wrong about everything you say, do, think, and post.

5/1/2008 1:16:57 AM

Ironic coming from the person who can't seem to read.

5/1/2008 1:18:45 AM

What is it I'm missing? The answer, clearly, is nothing. I misattributed a name and thought two people were one when if they were, it would change no relevant aspect of what was said.

How does it feel to be painfully wrong about everything you do? You live under a veil of sheer and utter confusion.

5/1/2008 1:19:55 AM

You tell me, since you seem to be getting by just fine doing it.

Tell me, is being a complete sociopath a necessary component, or only a useful side benefit?

5/1/2008 1:21:23 AM

Who is the sociopath here? The person appalled at blinding ignorance, misinformation, and lies, or the person who attacks the truth-sayer?

I am correct and you are a small, annoying dog nipping and yipping at my feet. You desperately try and derail the truth I speak, yet you call me the sociopath? Intriguing interpretation...

5/1/2008 1:23:06 AM

Remind me, which of us blusters, accuses, and attacks rather than reading as a form of rebuttal? And which of us endorses mass murder as acceptable social policy?

Oh, right. Not me.

GG there, internet toughguy.

5/1/2008 1:27:24 AM

You're the one accusing me of being an internet toughguy when I'm willing and available to meet anytime not during normal work hours? That's hilarious. Set up a place and time and I'll be glad to show you that you're wrong in person.

5/1/2008 1:30:26 AM

Quote :

"The fundamentals aren't there. Why does gas prices keep going up when the market remains well supplied? Market manipulation. And cutting the gas tax is ridiculous, the price will simply rise again to the pre-tax cut price. So now instead of billions going to paying for public infrastructure it will go to commodities speculators and Exxon. Its stupid."

Stevo, if you looked at the graph you would see that "the market being well supplied" is a product of the higher prices. In other words, if prices had not been $3.50 a gallon then consumers would have consumed more and we would have widespread shortages. If you are right and there is manipulation going on then we should expect to see production exceeding demand, or inventories overflowing with oil as Exxon and BP dump oil which cannot be sold at current prices in the ocean to get rid of it.

5/1/2008 10:37:10 AM

^ Well, the market was as well supplied now as it was at $80 or even $60 a barrel. The price has fallen negligibly even though demand is dropping and reserves are rising. I don't think you will find a commodities analyst out there who believes that the fundamentals support the current prices.

5/1/2008 10:54:08 AM

Even assuming your claim that market fundamentals don't support the current price level based upon the supply level (which incidentally neglects disruptions in supply caused by refinery shutdowns, decreased capacity due to Katrina, summer gas market segmentation due to differing requirements on fuel blends, etc), it still is an untenable leap to instantly conclude it's the result of market manipulation on the part of suppliers and not simply the result of other external actors - commodities speculators, shifts in demand patterns caused by a declining dollar, increased demand by other actors (China, India, etc), and so forth.

It simply does not automatically follow without further evidence that high gas prices are directly the result of market manipulation by the oil companies.

5/1/2008 11:07:49 AM

Obama is saying the same thing as Hillary:

Quote :

"We cannot deliver on a better energy policy unless we change how business is done in Washington We've got to go after the oil companies and look at their price-gouging. We’ve got to start using less oil and that means raising fuel efficiency standards on cars and developing alternative fuels. That’s the real honest answer to how we’re going to solve this problem. That’s what you need from a president, someone who’s going to tell you the truth. "

Is he really telling the truth?

How many times have oil company executives been hauled up in front of a congressional hearing and accused of price-gouging? And every time, congress cannot find one criminal thing to act upon.

Obama is misleading people into hating the very companies who are supplying our country with gas. He knows that Mobil's profits are large because THE COMPANY IS LARGE. In 2004, Mobil made 9.8 cents profit for every dollar earned. The gov't takes much more than that in tax per gallon...so where is Obama & Clinton calling for investigations into the gov't's windfall tax gouging?

Other sectors are much more profitable than oil. Citigroup made 17 cents profit per dollar. Merck made 23 cents profit per dollar. Marlboro made 22 cents.

For oil, prices are going up, but profit margin is remaining the same and predicted to even go down in the future. The huge demand for oil and the constricted supply is the problem. The US gov't refuses to let anyone drill into the massive quantities in our own country. The gov't refuses to permit a refinery from being built and then pillories the very industry that's trying to increase supply.

As for fuel efficiency. I keep reading that we are approaching the maximum efficiency for the combustionable engine. Now to increase MPG even a tad, would be so costly for automakers, that they would suffer even more economic hardship. And alternative fuel exploration is great, but for now the world runs on oil..which we still need to even do any of the research on alternatives.

5/1/2008 11:37:59 AM

Once again:

5/1/2008 11:42:40 AM

anyone else see where the Rockefellers (sp?) were going to make Exxon start investing in alternative fuels. Talk about some power. One analyst on CNN said that the Rockefellers werent even sure how much of Exxon they actually owned.

5/1/2008 11:51:35 AM

Just as a note:

Taxes profits should have no immediate effect on the supply or demand in the market and thus no immediate effect on price.

The long term effect of taxing profits depends on how profits are defined. Not to wax too nerdy but if the deprecation schedule for oil companies is accurate and other measures of the cost of physical capital and exploration are properly accounted then taxes on profits don't change the basic incentive structure of the firm at all.

What they would do is alter the return to risk. This is because profits, which are in part good luck, are taxed; however, losses, which are in part bad luck, are not subsidized. This would discourage people from taking risks.

5/1/2008 12:48:31 PM

Profits which are used to pay off losses are not taxed. As such, losses are subsidized. But your point is still valid.

5/1/2008 3:58:02 PM

^^ I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but I made no mention of taxes on windfall profits, for example. That is part of Hillary's plan, though.

My point was concerning the summer tax holiday on gas proposed by Clinton and McCain. Such a move will decrease the price, which will increase demand for gas. As demand for gas increases--on supply that will likely not increase by much--the price for gas will increase.

This is gimmickry and pandering. Clinton--"the populist":

Clinton Wants Congress on the Record Over Gas Tax

Quote :

"JEFFERSONVILLE, IND. -- In her harshest comments directed to oil companies to date, Clinton said she thinks the federal government should 'go after the oil companies.' 'I have advocated for a federal gas-tax holiday paid for by imposing an excess profits tax on the oil companies. Let the oil companies pay the federal gas tax for the next months!' said Clinton to thunderous applause. She also said she wanted to poll Congress to see where they stand on the gas-tax holiday. 'Do they stand with hard pressed Americans who are trying to pay their gas bills at the gas stations, or do they, once again, stand with the oil companies?' she asked. 'I want them to tell us, are they with us or against us when it comes to taking on the oil companies.' Clinton has faced harsh criticism from economists and politicians since supporting the gas-tax holiday, a plan that would suspend the federal tax on gas from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Critics say the fuel relief plan will do little to help Americans save any money, since the federal gas tax is 18 cents a gallon. Clinton argues that truck drivers and the trucking industry will benefit the most from the savings, which in turn will lower the cost of food and other good affected by the record high price of fuel."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4063936.shtml

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 7:13 AM. Reason : .]

5/2/2008 7:03:45 AM

Quote :

"My point was concerning the summer tax holiday on gas proposed by Clinton and McCain. Such a move will decrease the price, which will increase demand for gas. As demand for gas increases--on supply that will likely not increase by much--the price for gas will increase."

Of course, but by how much is the question. Eliminating the tax causes gas prices for Americans to fall 18 cents. Now, as we all enjoy repeating over and over, gasoline demand is inellastic in the short run, so a 5% drop in price will not drive up demand very much. What demand growth there is will need to be quenched by falling foreign demand by driving up the world price. So, if we assume the supply is fixed, demand is stimulated by 1% for every 5% price cut, international demand is three times U.S. demand, and everyone is equally ellastic then we can solve the equation ((18 - X) / 5) = ((X / 5) * 3) to get an after-cut world price increase of 4.5 cents for a total U.S. savings of 13.5 cents from the tax cut.

That said, the tax cut is a terrible idea on all accounts. A better idea would be to change the tax so that it varied with the price to keep future prices above $2.50. This would guarantee to fuel users that high prices are here to stay and they will respond accordingly.

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/2/2008 8:57:08 AM

you might as well give up loneshark. hooksaw is close minded to any kind of rational thinking or counter argument. It is impossible to alter his skewed warped neo-con brainwashed thought process.

[Edited on May 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : k]

5/2/2008 10:57:28 AM

Wait a minute.

Since cars are a major source of Climate Change... shouldn't Gore and the rest of the Climatnati be publicly cheering high gas prices?
Any politician who has supported the "Climate Change is Caused by Man" theory should not be trying to lower gas prices. They should be explaining to gas-guzzling citizens how wonderful it is that they are being encouraged to drive less and buy smaller cars.

How can you be against Climate Change and for lower gas prices?

5/2/2008 11:13:39 AM

Maybe because a higher price of oil drives up the cost of everything?

5/2/2008 12:25:56 PM

It does. But as seems to be the question for every post made today, the question is how much. For the vast majority of goods at the store, fuel prices make up only a tiny fraction of the final price. This is because the vast majority of the final price goes towards paying the wages of workers such as truck drivers, store stockers, checkout ladies, factory managers, assembly workers, technicians, marketters, CEOs, etc. And all these wages are not tied to fuel prices at all. As such, when fuel prices doubled from 2004 to 2005, inflation excluding fuel was only 2%. If we assume all of that inflation was from higher fuel prices, then reducing fuel prices by 18 cents, or 5%, would reduce inflation by 0.1%, clearly not worth the effort.

5/2/2008 1:59:00 PM