One more reason I would change my vote
 

I have never, ever taken the dem side during an election in my entire voting life. But I am now compelled to stand against the GOP for a number of reasons - primarily linked to the human/ethical philosophy of the Iraq situation, in all honesty.

But beyond the ethics/morality; whatever you want to call it of the Iraq situation; the financial implications of Iraq put this issue completely over the top for me in standing against GWB. The unbelievable amount of money being wasted in that venture is beyond our ability to sustain. GWB's financial stewardship pales even compared to the antics of some of our friends at Enron, Tyco and others. Dubya is recklessly managing the financial affairs of the US at the very risk of the lifestyle of generations to come. That kind of sin is usually within the scope of the Democratic party, but GWB is tossing out the rule book.

But to put the implications of GWB's actions in contemporary context - has it occured to the hawkish elements here that the Iraq invasion is directly linked to what's happening to the price of energy? Does everyone understand that a big part of the reason why we're paying what we are at the pumps today is thanks to GWB and company and their dabbling in Iraq? Do you also understand the kind of impact sky high energy prices can (and will) have on the US economy?

Remember your buddy GWB the next time you're dropping $50 or more to fill up your 911.

So, are you saying that if gas were cheaper you'd still be behind Bush?

Doing the "right" thing is not always pretty, popular or cheap.


* No Flaming please. We need to save the fuel. ;)

And Kerry is a better alternative?

I thank GWB EVERY time I fill up my 911 and only pay $50.

When I fill up my POS eurotrash renta mobile in Europe, I pay equivilent of $95. to fill it up.

Do you think Kerry was even aware of how much gasoline cost before GWB started dealing with the Saudis to increase production? He jumped right on that bandwagon. He was shocked to find out how much it cost to fill his 757 and his campaign had to pay for it rather than the voters paying for it.

Joe, I am in the same boat as you. Am trying to come up with a way of reconciling how to register the antiwar sentiment on the ballot.

Kerry certainly doesn't do it. AlQuieda is counting on a regime change (even going to a Spanish-style bombing right before our election) to insure that GWB does not get re-elected. They would love to have Kerry in place.

That fact alone will get GWB my vote. If my conscience gets me prior to then, it will be Nader. I figure a Nader vote cancels two or three Kerry votes. For no other reason than that it will give the liberal trolls something to scream about for the next four years. How Nader cost them the election again.

LOL that's not why I'm voting for Nader but it's a good a reason as any. :D

Joe, You are aware that Kerry plans to put in even more troops? More $ is that translation. So given your logic, why would you give him your vote as he wants to take it even further? Bottom line is if Kerry gets in and appoints judges, gets a tag along legislature the last thing affecting your pocketbook will be the $50 you put in your 911:)

Voting for a party based upon a single issue is to ignore the ideologies behind the party. Casting a vote based upon one isolated instance in history is irresponsible IMHO. There are many people who vote based upon the "candidate" or "issue of the day." The media knows this. The parties know this. Candidates spends millions of dollars to influence your vote based upon "political" mumbo jumbo and promises to support a single issue. Lobbyists spend millions of dollars getting the support of the party and to promote the party candidate that has a hidden adgenda. The ideology governs the hidden adgendas that the candidate, once elected, will follow. Do you really want to toss aside the core values you possess to entrust an opposing ideology to govern your day to day life, the life or your children? IMHO, a vote cast based upon a single issuelieve this is unfortunate. I think such votes should not even be counted for an office position. Such votes are for the enactment of legislation, not candidates. Unfortunatly, the majority do not understand the difference.

Why do parties always point to their opponents view on a "hot" issue? Because it takes the heat off their real agenda. It's mud slinging, nothing more, nothing less. Generally, it has no bearing on the day to day life but only diverts attention from the ideologies of the candidate. Unfortunatly, most people cannot see through the mud.

The ideologies behind the party are what are important to me. I would never abandon my beliefs and give in to ideologies I do not believe in because gas is .20 higher than 6 months ago. I would never trust the ideologies of the opposing party to govern my day to day life. It would take alot more than an increase in gas prices, abortion, or an increase in minimum wages to sway my vote.

Well said Paul.

"AlQuieda is counting on a regime change (even going to a Spanish-style bombing right before our election) to insure that GWB does not get re-elected. They would love to have Kerry in place."

I've seen that parroted a few times, but it makes no sense.

In fact, some reports out of Spain say the opposite. A group claiming responsibility for the bombing and links to al Quaeda stated they were working to assure a Bush re-election.

The majority of the Spanish public blamed the election bombing on the fact that the pro-USA Prime Minister (who was up for re-election) brought the wrath of the Arab terrorists onto the Spanish people because of the Spanish GOVERNMENT support of the war in Iraq in spite of a very large (probably a majority) popular anti-war in Iraq populace.

Also explains the almost immediate explanation of the Interior Minister (also up for re-election) that the bombing was by the Basque Separatists (whose terror program got that regime elected with their anti-Basque platform). The government knew what would happen if Arab terror was to blame.

That same program is scheduled for us. I guess the proof will be that last week prior to our election, won't it?

I'm with you 100% on this point. Which is exactly why I'm not a democrat. I am a successful capitalist and believe in sound fiscal responsibility and good stewardship of the nation's tax revenues. Which is exactly what is not being demonstrated by GWB. So to your point - not voting for Dubya is being consistent with the ideologies of the GOP.

It blows my mind how obediently blind my GOP loving comrades can be. It seems like GWB or any other republican administration would enjoy your support no matter what they did - simply to spite the democrats for lack of any other sense or reason.

In a way, I admire your steadfast loyalty. As for me, sorry lads, but my loyalties are faithful to principal rather than party color.

Singpilot says:

"I thank GWB EVERY time I fill up my 911 and only pay $50.

When I fill up my POS eurotrash renta mobile in Europe, I pay equivilent of $95. to fill it up."

Come on pal - we all know that energy commodities are exactly that and that everyone on the planet pays the same price for any of them, including gasoline. The only variables to the pump price from location to location (including internationally) are transportation logistics and local taxes.

Fuel in europe is two or three times what it is in America because of the tax treatment by european governments, not because of the wisdom or actions of GWB...

Think it through before you throw it down next time - we'll be glad to help you if you need it.

I could not agree more. This is a war on terror and we seem to easily forget that 2,500+ Americans died when we were attacked. GWB is showing leadership. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. But after the previous 8 years of edict by focus group, I'll take a man with honest convictions.

Joe, Joe, Joe.....

If Mr. Kerry gets into office, he'll espouse, once again, his idea of 50 cents a gallon additional taxes on every gallon of gasoline. Starts to sound like Europe, huh.... Unfortunately, I think you have the tail wagging the dog. I never said GWB has anything to do with prices in Europe. Read what I did say.

I travel around the world a lot. For whatever reason, expensive fuel feels like expensive fuel wherever you buy it. Does it slow anyone down when it is expensive? Not really.

I think our fuel, even now, is not as expensive as it could be, especially if there was some idiotic social agenda attached to it, like the one that Mr. Kerry wants to start.

Buying fuel here in the states is a LOT less painful than ANYWHERE else in this world right now. The President may have oil company ties, and may court the Arab states, but it is for THAT VERY REASON that you have the comparatively inexpensive fuels and available supply that we now have.

Look at what has happened to the world market since 9/11.

China moved from #8 importer to #2, yes, behind us. Do you really think the sellers of crude give a damn who they sell to, other than for political reasons and or beneficial arrangements that are not always visible to us? The Chinese will gladly pay $50 a barrel for crude to supply their consumers, who, BTW, outnumber us 25 to one, rather than drill their own crude. They know they are going to have the biggest reserves someday at the rate the world is burning thru them.

I did think before I 'put it down', and yes, I vote. Unlike some poor misguided liberal souls, I don't need any help deciding who to vote for.

If you had actually read this thread before replying, you'd have seen that GWB is NOT who I am automatically voting for. I guess I got the blind wrath that you intended for your former republican friends.

Come on pal.....

Joe, I smell a rat:) Please explain how voting for Kerry will be more in line with core GOP principals than Bush. If you are truely upset, stay home. The fact that you claim to be a staunch capitalist flies in the face of voting for the man with the most liberal record in the Senate. Are you just trying to "teach the GOP" a lesson? Please. I see NO logic in your arguement. Vote for Kerry and you'll get most everything you dislike in Bush and then some.

Hold it guys - did I ever say that I would vote for Kerry?

All I've ever espoused is my conservatism and my inability to stand behind (and vote for) GWB. Who I would vote for is for my own consideration.

But this kinda thinking...

"I could not agree more. This is a war on terror and we seem to easily forget that 2,500+ Americans died when we were attacked. GWB is showing leadership. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. But after the previous 8 years of edict by focus group, I'll take a man with honest convictions."

Is an example of how the twin babies of logic and reason have been thrown out with the terrorist bath water. How many times do you have to be hit over the head with a rubber hose before you will understand that 9/11 has ZERO to do with IRAQ? Not even the Bush boys try to float that argument in any meaningful way anymore. Man, talk about buying a bill of goods hook line and sinker (to compound a coupla metaphors).

Joe, I don't think anyone here is trying to tie 9/11 and Iraq. Halm's post, which you quoted, states that GWB was taking a position of leadership, something sadly lacking in the previous administration. Halm did'nt link 9/11 and Iraq. Your quoting him seemed to infer that he did, and then you ran with that.

I WAS, however, tying 9/11 to the price of fuel on the world market. But not for the 'sound bite' statement you made in closing. That was what got me to reply the first time.

Iraq was a very small temporary price blip on that market, as was the coup in Venezuela, and various attacks on facilities in Saudi Arabia. That's it. Over and done with. Nothing to do with now. The closure of a single unprofitable refinery in California (a capitalist move) raised the price of gas in California much more than the blips of Iraq.

Our present $40 a barrel cost is because OTHER nations (read China and Brazil) are more than willing to pay that price (and a LOT more) for crude, and are now importing oil in greater quantities than ever before. We were spoiled on $32 a barrel oil. Is that GWB's fault? Could be..... but probably not. I bet he'd love to take credit for that, but it's not so.

I responded to your original post where there were a number of false (widely espoused Kerry sound bites) statements that Iraq has something to do with (your words) "the sky-high prices of energy". A factual look (even for a capitalist) would discover that an apples to apples price comparison of todays' energy costs are actually less on an inflation adjusted scale than during the 'energy crisis' that was the product of a producer supply shortage. Something GWB has made efforts to preclude. UAE and Saudi Arabia (after intense lobbying by Colin Powell) ARE increasing VOLUME to stabilize prices.

Some of your original post and your responses, smell and sound like the Kerry campaign rhetoric. Your first two sentances of that first post go right to it, but, yes, do not actually say it. I can understand how we would think that your voting for Kerry was where you were headed. You are right, you didn't actually come out and say it!

Your final line in the first post tied Iraq to the price of fuel; the $50 p-car fillup. I am still trying to determine if it was a troll to see who you could draw out. Well, you got me!

I got that you are not voting for GWB. I got that you are a successful capitalist. I got that you are very good at compounding metaphors. In my first post, I agreed with your concerns, but was trying to figure out how you got to them.

I think that RickM's, lendaddy's and DD74's responses all pointed to the fact that we were confused about what you were trying to say.

Best of luck on voting your conscience. I know I will have no problem voting mine.

Holy crap Joe. And I thought I was the only laissez-faire capitalist in here. Or the only one who had an appreciation for 100% secular hands-off capitalism. I thought that whenever I b!tched about this war along with the outrageous spending and ridicoulous estate, gift, dividends and capital gains taxes, I was alone. Alone since most of my fellow republicans seem to have gone blind. I too stand for my values and not for what is preached to me. I hate unnecessary wars, fear mongering, double and triple taxation, lack of banking privacy, wellfare abuse, protectionism of corporations and individuals. My feelings will never change. If the party's values become something only a redneck will appreciate, oh well. I won't follow it into the gutter. And since Kerry will probably screw me on the back door by trying to repeal the little tax change that happens in 2010, I just won't vote. If I am a man without a party for the lack of a capitalist one, oh well. I can wait in the hope that America might stop following its parties like sheep some day.

Lynn, you are correct. There is definitely a worry increase in oil futures. However, no way no how is it the whole or even majority of the increase. Would we be b!itchin if gas were $1.45 instead of $1.31? I doubt it. Hmm, there was a guy on here a while back that traded at the CBOE, maybe he could shed some light on it. And Joe, if you dont vote for Kerry, I believe your only other choice is Nader. I don't see the difference as far a incompatability to your principals. Maybe your gonna write Nostatic in:)

Hate to call ya a liar Len, 'cause that would mean that ya know what you're talking about. Intent to deceive is an implicit component of a lie. So you're just plain wrong but Lynn is at least partly correct.

Gasoline prices are primarily a derivative of crude prices. Crude prices are fundamentally responsive to the vaguarities of supply and demand. Crude has low intrinsic value relative to today's pricing - say $4-5 per barrel (actually less for mid-east light crude - more for northsea or gulf crude). Intrinsic value being the cost to bring the stuff to market.

So the difference between $35 per barrel and $5 per barrel is the market treatment of the value of crude after the application of the pressures of supply & demand. So is crude highly valuable because of growing demand or shrinking supply? The answer is partly the former, mainly the latter.

Emerging economies like China are putting increasing pressure on the demand side - as well as relatively robust economic outlooks for some more traditional economies. But concerns about stability of supply are far and away the greatest drivers of price inflation today.

And it doesn't take a Galbraith to understand that US activities in the middle east have exacerbated worries about collapses in the supply side of the crude equation.

Oh, and Singpilot... I see gasoline is up to $0.05 per litre in Caracas today - that works out to about $0.20/gallon or so. Wow - and the Bush administration thinks poorly of Mr Chavez's Venezualan government. I guess Chavez is doing one hell of a job compared to GWB on your scale, no? BTW- even gasoline in Moscow is not far off the US price.

Insults aside, what part of the increase is due to increased demand in China and throughout the world? What part of the increase is due to the Venezualan problems? What part of the increase is due to OPEC lowering output? What part of the increase is due to the reported refinery problems in the states and abroad? And finally, what portion is due to the war. I do not claim to know the answers personally. I got my information from an oil futures trader, guess I should have just come to you:)

I don't have time to read all through these posts right now. Later, yes. Now, no. But I also played a little Kerryopoly just now, and noticed that one of the smears was Kerry's suggestion of a $0.50 gas tax, that would cost the ordinary family something like $500 in a year's time. What I notice is that the GWB policy is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than that, and the money goes to OPEC. Under Kerry's less expensive plan, we'd be putting that money in a pool for things like road maintenance and improvement, and maybe even schools. So, it's not even money we'd get rid of. We'd keep and use it.

I'm sure there are interesting comments here, and I'll read them when I get a moment.

I think we should all note that the $0.50/gal proposed gas tax was in a bill that was put forth a decade ago, "back when regular was selling for a national average of $1.01 per gallon."

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=165

Can you imagine what the inflation adjusted Kerry tax would be now a decade later?

That sends shudders thru any consumer.

singpilot, according to Gregroy Mankiw, who is now the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers:

Well okay, I've read though these posts now and there is quite some difference between my expectations and the reality. The interpersonal and egotistical elements are fairly overwhelming, but there are some rational comments here. I'm not going to jump into either one, but I do have a question. It looks to me like demand is only a tiny bit elastic in the short run, such that gas price fluctuations from month to month, and even year to year, are largely driven by supply. And when it comes to supply, ummmmm, I recall an organization that is a collection of middle-eastern oil producing countries that gets together from time to time to simply decide what production volume is going to be (supply), in millions of barrels per day. Another word I recall from that time was "cartel." It was called O*****, or OHECK or something like that. They are currently being asked to increase production. Did they not decrease production since Dubya's Iraq decision? Be honest, now.

"One more reason I would change my vote
I have never, ever taken the dem side during an election in my entire voting life. But I am now compelled to stand against the GOP for a number of reasons - primarily linked to the human/ethical philosophy of the Iraq situation, in all honesty.

But beyond the ethics/morality; whatever you want to call it of the Iraq situation; the financial implications of Iraq put this issue completely over the top for me in standing against GWB. The unbelievable amount of money being wasted in that venture is beyond our ability to sustain. GWB's financial stewardship pales even compared to the antics of some of our friends at Enron, Tyco and others. Dubya is recklessly managing the financial affairs of the US at the very risk of the lifestyle of generations to come. That kind of sin is usually within the scope of the Democratic party, but GWB is tossing out the rule book.

But to put the implications of GWB's actions in contemporary context - has it occured to the hawkish elements here that the Iraq invasion is directly linked to what's happening to the price of energy? Does everyone understand that a big part of the reason why we're paying what we are at the pumps today is thanks to GWB and company and their dabbling in Iraq? Do you also understand the kind of impact sky high energy prices can (and will) have on the US economy?

Remember your buddy GWB the next time you're dropping $50 or more to fill up your 911."



I'm with joeclarke on this, although I don't want Kerry to win either. Who am I going to vote for???? Very frustrating!

Yes Superman, they have increased quotas since the Iraqattack. But regardless of official quotas (the Saudi's are really the only members that follow these closely), participants in that loose association have been pretty much pumping every drop they could over the last number of months to take advantage of the peaking price levels.

That's the whole point of OPEC - to buffer the supply side of the supply/demand equation to keep realized prices at target (whatever that means from time-to-time).

With energy commodities the marketplace is inefficient as to pricing on the basis of supply/demand because the quasi-emotional need for certainty of supply and expectation of future price eclipses the amount of physical supply vs. actual demand.

That's what's happening now. There is turmoil regardling certainty of supply to the extent that people are willing to pay an increasingly greater price to lock in supply in the future. This is because they fear supply may be disrupted and they want that disruption to effect other buyers ("spot buyers") rather than them.

So in this situation - OPEC is completely impotent as a factor in influencing pricing. The market is being driven by factors outside of the simple supply/demand mathematics.

What circumstance has created this uncertainty? The US invasion of Iraq is obviously the catalyst here.

Even with your data ($0.024 per $1 per barrel change), and assuming the $9-$10 pb "fear factor" is correct, that means the war has affected fuel prices by a whopping $0.216-$0.240 per gallon. Like I said not even the majority much less all of the increase is due to the war/uncertainty.

I don't know what you are trying to say Lynn... But there's nothing in any of your quotes or references that speaks to why crude is at the value that it is.

In case you missed it, I'll reiterate for you. It costs about $2 to $3 for the Saudis (and ball park for most OPEC members) to pump oil out of the ground. So after adding in a variable for willingness to take profit - anything above about $5/bbl is gravy.

Energy demand is almost completely inelastic as to price. That means that demand remains constant regardless of price. Because demand looks identical regardless of price, price is only impacted by supply side economics (production/replacement costs, willingness to take profit and dynamics related to certainty of supply).

With me so far?

Because supply side economics dictate price regardless of demand side economics - OPEC was formed to manage the supply side in an artificially consistent manner. This happens in lots of areas and can serve to benefit both the seller and consumer. But because crude is so cheap to produce in the middle east (probably half or a third the cost of most crude pumped in the US) - everyone wins with a stabilized crude price at a level that makes production and reinvestment possible everywhere in the world.

Having said that...

There are two pricing mechanisms in energy commodities - today's price (spot) and tomorrow's price (futures). In the spot market, consumers (eg. industrials and refiners) take crude at today's available volume and price. Future and spot pricing factors are linked - but not lock-step. In the future market, consumers forward buy crude at a fixed price at a point in the future (obviously). But also in the future market, speculators buy and hedge (either buy or sale positions).

When consumers become uncertain about the reliablility or cost of future supply and because demand is inelastic as to price, they begin to lock in future volume to get comfortable. As more and more consumers attempt to lock in future deliveries this causes future prices to be "bid up". Throw speculators and hedgers into the equation, and you have an upward spiral of crude prices. Just like when people see mortage rates going up - they have a greater tendency to lock in a rate for a longer term - everyone wants certainty of cost and supply.

So, as futures prices get bid up because of concerns about catastrophic failure in supply (this can mean even a 1% loss in world production or can mean a further spike in price) - OPEC becomes powerless to impact pricing with promises about supply volumes. OPEC can be effective in pushing prices upward but has little influence in pushing prices downward in a market fraught with concern. OPEC is happy at $20 crude - they don't like $40 crude much more than we do. Crude demand is elastic to price in the very long run and OPEC is smart enough to understand that driving your customers out of business is bad business.

So back to the point of all this... What is causing the world to be concerned about certainty of supply?

One word... Iraqnam.

So, like the man said, thank GWB the next time you spend $50 to fill your 911 or your neighbor gets canned because his factory went bust due to gas and oil prices. Oh yeah, oil and natural gas prices are also linked to each other - but that's another story.

I don't think he missed the point at all.

To my simple mind, the price of crude is a non-issue in terms of what an oil producing country profits. Either they make their profit on the price per barrel (currently $40/barrel) or they make it up on volume @ $32/barrel. Either way, they make bundles. If I had an almost unending supply of a commodity, what does it matter about this thing called supply and demand? Okay, I don't want to work as much so I'll be less productive and the price goes up. Or, okay, I'll produce more at a lower price - same difference as long as there is some demand. Currently, the US is at a level of "some demand" and beyond, so not to worry.

The byproduct is that SA, Kuwait, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Venezuela, et al and the oil companies, the middle men and politicians who work in concert with them, reap the benefits of this strategy. The control of oil prices by a cartel (i.e. monopoly) has a powerful effect on so many aspects of our and many other country's economies - employment, commerce, purchasing power and yes, political favor. Every country so strongly dependent on this natural resource is in the same boat. Beyond the fact that when there's an attempted ramp up on an alternative source of energy and the price of crude drops accordingly - these guys have more to lose than a few trilion dollars of oil profit.

I have a notion the availability of cheaper crude in the months leading up to November will have a powerful effect on who wins the election. Didn't OPEC recently agree to up production by 2 million barrels/month? (BTW, is that number correct? That sounds like chicken feed to me..... for now). If GW and his pals (or whoever) can influence oil production and the economic power that comes with it, then that's a big advantage for them. So when they yank on those big energy strings in the sky, we'll feel obliged to jump and say, "yes sir, how high?"

To some that will be fine; as long as gas is cheap do with me what you must. But for the rest of us, that should be some cause for alarm.

JMHO,
Sherwood