|
|
|
|
#1
12-01-2007, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] A much greater problem arises if the OPEC countries try to compensate for lost buying power by raising prices. Thanks to our retarded energy policies (thank you Greenies) we are even more vulnerable than we were during the oil embargo. [/ QUOTE ] We are pumpin oil out of Alaska like it's goin outta style. Problem is: we are shippin the bulk of it to Japan, at a discount to the market price, in exchange for them financing our deficit. [/ QUOTE ] que tin foil hat. please source this. i'm assuming you have data that show that japan's oil purchases from alaska are below market price. espeically seeing as how oil is pumped out by private institutions and the deficit is a government issue, the govt would have to provide compensation to the companies for selling to japan at below market prices. try again though Barron [/ QUOTE ] The U.S. subsidizes the price difference. My source: it was on either CNN or FOX about 1-2 yrs ago. I don't make crap up. [/ QUOTE ] just because you don't make it up doesn't mean it is true. CNN & FOX aren't reliable sources. it shouldn't be hard to see whether the US gives the difference in oil prices to companies that sell to japan. so i'd like to see some kind of source before even considering that. japan's purchases of govt securities aren't as a result of oil but rather as a historic tendency to want to control the level of their currency. further, they have trade surpluses w/ the US so those two are why they have such huge foreign exchange reserves of USDs. Barron [/ QUOTE ] That's an acceptable response. Just don't accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat. 
|
|
#2
12-01-2007, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
I've heard the alaska japan oil thing before too. 3 minute google search. also if you remember the alaska pipeline was built according to the premise that oil would stay in US. that was in the funding and the law. but that restriction in the law was repealed in 1995 or so.
http://www.counterpunch.org/anwr.html [ QUOTE ] An FTC economist had concluded that BP-Amoco was selling oil to Asian refineries at prices lower than it could sell to US refineries on the West Coast, in order to manufacture a US shortage. As evidence the FTC had e-mail traffic passing between BP managers who talked about "shorting the WC [West Coast] market" in order to "leverage up" the prices there. Another BP manager called this scheme a "no brainer". The FTC reckoned that this ploy allowed BP to hike prices at West Coast pumps by as much as 3 cents a gallon. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#3
12-01-2007, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard the alaska japan oil thing before too. 3 minute google search. also if you remember the alaska pipeline was built according to the premise that oil would stay in US. that was in the funding and the law. but that restriction in the law was repealed in 1995 or so. http://www.counterpunch.org/anwr.html [ QUOTE ] An FTC economist had concluded that BP-Amoco was selling oil to Asian refineries at prices lower than it could sell to US refineries on the West Coast, in order to manufacture a US shortage. As evidence the FTC had e-mail traffic passing between BP managers who talked about "shorting the WC [West Coast] market" in order to "leverage up" the prices there. Another BP manager called this scheme a "no brainer". The FTC reckoned that this ploy allowed BP to hike prices at West Coast pumps by as much as 3 cents a gallon. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] and what does this have to do w/ the japanese funding the govt deficits? Barron
|
|
#4
12-01-2007, 10:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
and what does this have to do w/ the japanese funding the govt deficits? Barron [/ QUOTE ] you were the one who said he was crazy and making the whole thing up. if you had bet that he was making it up and none of it was true (cause he's crazy), you would have lost.
|
|
#5
12-01-2007, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] and what does this have to do w/ the japanese funding the govt deficits? Barron [/ QUOTE ] you were the one who said he was crazy and making the whole thing up. if you had bet that he was making it up and none of it was true (cause he's crazy), you would have lost. [/ QUOTE ] unfortunately, it was conditional. my big issue with that was that the US govt was trading subsidies for investment in US securities. i know that US securities were purchased NOT as a result of any oil exchange so thats why i thought it was time to break out the tin foil hat. if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false. Barron
|
|
#6
12-01-2007, 11:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false. [/ QUOTE ] you don't know that it's false. you think it is not true. yesterday you would have said the part that you now know is true was false. you not smart if u think u know it all. btw, it took legislation for the US to be able to sell to japan. where u think that legislation came from? you think national legislation can't have political motivations? just look to current china financning our debt and the dance going on.
|
|
#7
12-01-2007, 11:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if 1/2 of the parlay is true thats fine. all i know is the main part of it (US traded oil for security purchases/deficit financing) is false. [/ QUOTE ] you don't know that it's false. you think it is not true. yesterday you would have said the part that you now know is true was false. you not smart if u think u know it all. btw, it took legislation for the US to be able to sell to japan. where u think that legislation came from? you think national legislation can't have political motivations? [/ QUOTE ] sell what? oil or treasuries to japan? anyways, legislation obviously has political motives, pretty much by definition. [ QUOTE ] just look to current china financning our debt and the dance going on. [/ QUOTE ] what is your claim here? china financing our deficit was an ancillary effect of china's political decision to grow via exports. it has since obviously grown to a political discussion in the US since it has repurcussions here. Barron
|
|
#8
12-02-2007, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The differences between 1929 and Today
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard the alaska japan oil thing before too. 3 minute google search. also if you remember the alaska pipeline was built according to the premise that oil would stay in US. that was in the funding and the law. but that restriction in the law was repealed in 1995 or so. http://www.counterpunch.org/anwr.html [ QUOTE ] An FTC economist had concluded that BP-Amoco was selling oil to Asian refineries at prices lower than it could sell to US refineries on the West Coast, in order to manufacture a US shortage. As evidence the FTC had e-mail traffic passing between BP managers who talked about "shorting the WC [West Coast] market" in order to "leverage up" the prices there. Another BP manager called this scheme a "no brainer". The FTC reckoned that this ploy allowed BP to hike prices at West Coast pumps by as much as 3 cents a gallon. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Thanks. I don't know about your area, but the Monday after Thanksgiving, gas was up 10 cents a gallon and down 10 cents a gallon the next day. Bumped it up a day just for those returning on Monday. And, from what I saw on the news, I95 was bumper to bumper.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
