The speaker says that the high gas prices are the president's fault

[Codger_64]

Commodities are not stocks. Commodity futures are not physical commodities. They don't buy and sell oil. The restriction I mentioned would not change the method by which oil moves, it would only remove one level of profiteering, the one that provides no obvious benefit to exploration, production, refinement or marketing of finished product. Oil company and refinery company stocks would remain on the stock market, a physical product to be bought and sold.

[lepto]

But the speculators don't get all of that money. The producers selling the oil get most of it. The speculators get the difference between what the can sell the futures for and what they actually end up buying the oil for, just like the oil companies. Yeah, we whine about them buying at $85 a barrel and by the time that the stuff gets refined and delivered, being able to sell it at the $95 a barrel price, BUT if they buy it today at $100 a barrel and it is back down to say $90 by the time it gets through the system and to the retailers, they don't get to sell it at the old $100 price point. The major complaint that the oil companies actually have with the speculators is that they are not users of the products that they buy and sell and they introduce volatility into the actual market (not the commodities market) Big producers like Saudi Arabia can short sheet the speculators anytime they want to merely by announcing increases or decreases in production.

I suppose the dearth of profit in oil futures trading explains why speculators only make up about 70% of the market. That appears to be just about the opposite of their market share pre-Bush the Elder. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/1...ore-about.html I'm sure it has more to do with Goldman-Sachs et al enjoying the ups and downs of oil speculation rather than their actually expecting to make a profit on their investments. I'm even more sure a commodities market, overrun by gamblers, could never have a negative effect on consumer prices. Why if that were to happen we might have to create some system to isolate commodities from gamblers, limit it to consumers and producers and throw in a smidgen of speculation just to make the whole thing work...oh, wait.

[eyeeatingfish]

Commodities are not stocks. Commodity futures are not physical commodities. They don't buy and sell oil. The restriction I mentioned would not change the method by which oil moves, it would only remove one level of profiteering, the one that provides no obvious benefit to exploration, production, refinement or marketing of finished product. Oil company and refinery company stocks would remain on the stock market, a physical product to be bought and sold.

What about owning gold via the stockmarket but not in actual possesion?

[Codger_64]

What about owning gold via the stockmarket but not in actual possesion?

Gold futures? Or stocks in gold mines? What of it? Is gold these days so rare and needful to be declared a strategic material? Not really. It isn't the basis of our dollar. Gold is not needed to produce our transportation, other than in minute amounts for some electrical contacts. Platinum is needed for catalytic converters, but it isn't really all that rare or consumed in the quantity that oil is. During WWII, a lot of materials were restricted as strategic materials including oil, alumnum, steel, brass. So there is historic precidence for it in national law.

[jdm61]

Well, when you make profits and only have to put up 10% of the price of what you are buying at most, then it is a pretty lucrative business. However, thhe money made buy speculators is NOTHING compared to what the Saudis get for oil that is brought out of the ground for a couple of bucks per barrels tops and sold on the open market at $100.

I suppose the dearth of profit in oil futures trading explains why speculators only make up about 70% of the market. That appears to be just about the opposite of their market share pre-Bush the Elder. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/1...ore-about.html I'm sure it has more to do with Goldman-Sachs et al enjoying the ups and downs of oil speculation rather than their actually expecting to make a profit on their investments. I'm even more sure a commodities market, overrun by gamblers, could never have a negative effect on consumer prices. Why if that were to happen we might have to create some system to isolate commodities from gamblers, limit it to consumers and producers and throw in a smidgen of speculation just to make the whole thing work...oh, wait.

[lepto]

Well, when you make profits and only have to put up 10% of the price of what you are buying at most, then it is a pretty lucrative business. However, thhe money made buy speculators is NOTHING compared to what the Saudis get for oil that is brought out of the ground for a couple of bucks per barrels tops and sold on the open market at $100.

True enough, however, you will agree it doesn't appear the Saudis et al are driving the price of oil. And, if that's the case, then neither will increased drilling, a new pipeline or more efficient use of resources have the effect of bringing prices down for any significant period of time. Once again the system has been gamed by those with the political access and resources. Can anyone doubt our republic is, fundamentally, broken? From the lack of criminal prosecution of those who brought us the worldwide financial collapse to the clear manipulation of commodities markets to the open purchasing of elections via Citizens United to the rotting of our country's infrastructure while we, literally, spend trillions engaging in endless, pointless, futile warfare all of the signs are there for anyone to see. One would think we (all of us) could lay aside our political differences long enough to clean up our system of government. In my mind repairing our broken government should be job one--before the economy, worrying about guns or even the Baby Jesus; once that is done we can all, happily, go back to arguing conservative/liberal, democrat/republican, capitalism/socialism, guns/more guns, science/religion and every other fun aspect of politics. What say you?

[never too sharp]

Gas prices are set by the international market, not the president. The oil companies can affect change in those prices, but guess what? They're going to do what brings them the most profit, regardless of the impact on our wallets.

Taxes on gasoline? That's another story.

[timcsaw]

Gas prices are set by the international market, not the president. The oil companies can affect change in those prices, but guess what? They're going to do what brings them the most profit, regardless of the impact on our wallets.

Taxes on gasoline? That's another story.

Lowering/removing Federal and state taxes on gasoline/fuel IS something the government(s) can do. The price per gallon could drop by double-digit percentages.

[MountainBilly]

Lowering/removing Federal and state taxes on gasoline/fuel IS something the government(s) can do. The price per gallon could drop by double-digit percentages.

Which would stop all highway/bridge maintenance and construction, throw hundreds of thousands out of work and increase the usage of gas.

[Codger_64]

Allowing further permitting for exploration and drilling would also have an effect on the price of refined petroleum. That, as well as allowing permits for further refinery construction, would help to lower our dependence on foriegn oil (though current refineries are operating far below capacity).

Setting restrictions on how much of our oil supply can pass through the hands of the Wall Street gamblers is another option open to the President. These things, it seems to me, are much more appropriate actions than dumping federal dollars into startup companies whose best case goals are to produce a few electric cars for a few millionares to play with, some of which are being produced overseas.

[Codger_64]

Which would stop all highway/bridge maintenance and construction, throw hundreds of thousands out of work and increase the usage of gas.

It would also have the effect of reducing the cost of agricultural products and manufactured goods. Everything you eat, drink or buy.

[lepto]

Lowering/removing Federal and state taxes on gasoline/fuel IS something the government(s) can do. The price per gallon could drop by double-digit percentages.

And that price drop would be, rapidly, sucked up by speculation because those taxes are not the problem; they're not even the symptom of the problem. Since our highway infrastructure is already falling to pieces why don't we, first, try establishing position limits in oil speculation that, effectively, puts us back to pre-GHW Bush levels of oil speculation and see if we can accomplish our goals without further destroying our nation's roads and bridges? What would be the harm in that?

[MountainBilly]

It would also have the effect of reducing the cost of agricultural products and manufactured goods. Everything you eat, drink or buy.

And how much will it cost to transport produce when the highways and bridges are unusable? There are various good and bad results from every policy, but transportation is the grease that makes the marketplace of goods efficient. Remember the main reason that Tocqueville predicted that the US would become a world dominant power? He cited the excellence of North American river systems as the transportation means to a marketplace that could create incredible wealth. It is not mere coincidence that Eisenhower's highway building project coincided with the fastest growth the US economy has ever seen.

Lower gas usage has already greatly depressed road maintenance funding. To eliminate fuel tax will cause demand to grow and thus oil prices to rise as well as destroying the crucial transportation infrastructure.

[Codger_64]

IIRC, gas taxes, are not a percentage of the market price. They are fixed amounts charged on each gallon. Speculators are under no such restriction. While their percentages of the price per gallon at the pump fluctuate, they add far more to the price per gallon than do the combined taxes. Just watch the price of gasoline at the pump jump on news of civil unrest in some country from whom we import no oil at all. Like Libya or Syria ( about 1,000 barrels a day in 2009).

[timcsaw]

Here's yer' problem!

Top 10 Obama energy blunders

Wonder why gas prices are surging, with the cost at the pump topping $5 per gallon in some parts of the country? Obama’s anti-energy-producing policies certainly are not helping. The buck stops in the Oval Office, as this list of the President’s energy blunders attest.

1. Keystone kerfuffle
Canadian energy producers want to sell the United States an abundance of oil, if only President Obama gives the go-ahead to build the Keystone Pipeline XL. However, the President has chosen his deep-pocketed environmental backers over U.S. energy needs (and thousands of jobs for American workers). With the Middle East more volatile than ever, developing North American energy resources would help free the United States from being beholden to Islamic fanatics.

2. Volt vanity
After President Obama’s bailout of General Motors, the automaker turned its attention to producing the Chevy Volt. Even with the government’s help, the electric car is a flop, with few buyers and an exorbitant price. The Volt has trouble staying charged in cold weather and the battery can burst into flames long after being damaged in a minor accident. Obama’s fantasy of gasless cars is proving to be among the biggest debacles in automotive history—rivaling Ford’s Edsel and Chevrolet’s Corvair.

3. Solyndra silliness
President Obama made sure the $787 billion stimulus package was stuffed with initiatives meant to create green jobs by the millions. What the taxpayer got in return was a parade of bankrupt companies, led by Solyndra. The solar-panel producing company got a $535 million loan guarantee, with the promise that 4,000 jobs would be created, but end up filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year. Solyndra became the symbol of Obama’s misreading of the marketplace’s demand for green energy.

4. Tesla travesty
Here’s another tragic “green jobs” story. Tesla Motors received $465 million from the Obama administration to produce electric cars. So far the company has created 400 jobs, at a cost of over a million dollars per job, by producing the Tesla Roadster, with a price tag of $100,000 per car. Unfortunately, should the electric car ever become fully discharged, it would cost $40,000 in repairs. Where’s Occupy Wall Street on this?

5. Moratorium morass
After the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama imposed a moratorium on deep-water drilling. The action prompted oil rigs to relocate to Brazil, costing jobs in America. Obama then offered technology and support for Brazil to develop its offshore oil production, creating jobs in Brazil. Does this make sense to anyone?

6. Drilling dashed
It is not only the deep-water drilling pull-back that is wrongheaded. The President also refuses to consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or along most of America’s coastline. And he is not aggressively pushing for shale oil extraction or natural gas drilling on federal lands. There is an abundance of energy in this country if only the President would seek to develop it.

7. Price pandemonium
Of course energy prices are exploding. That’s what the President wanted all along. Remember his famous utterance, saying that under his policies, “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Also telling was his selection of Steven Chu as energy secretary. Chu once said that it was important for U.S. gas prices to mirror Europe’s sky-high petrol costs. It looks like he may be getting his wish.

8. Cap and trade catatonic
Despite a big push by the environmental lobby, President Obama couldn’t get his convoluted cap-and-trade package through the Democratic-controlled Senate. The legislation would have raised energy costs for consumers, while enriching visionary thinkers like Al Gore, who tried to parlay his global warming alarmism into a profitable venture by cashing in on the legislation’s emission-credits trading market.

9. Algae acclamation
With enormous areas of shale oil deposits and oil reserves in the U.S. remaining off-limits for development, President Obama has turned his eye to America’s algae resources to solve the nation’s energy problem. The President claims that by harvesting algae, and turning it into fuel, the nation could replace 17% of the oil it imports. Mr. President, if you want to reduce oil imports, here is some advice: Drill, baby, drill.

[and probably my favorite...]

10. Energy excess
It takes a village of Secret Service agents and White House aides to accompany Michelle Obama and her husband (sometimes) on vacations to Spain, Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, etc. With Air Force One gobbling up copious amounts of fuel, even one of the First Couples’ date nights to New York could light a town, or even Al Gore’s house. With Americans struggling to pay high gas prices, perhaps the first family can set an example for the nation and start cutting back on their excessive energy use.

[Codger_64]

And how much will it cost to transport produce when the highways and bridges are unusable? There are various good and bad results from every policy, but transportation is the grease that makes the marketplace of goods efficient. Remember the main reason that Tocqueville predicted that the US would become a world dominant power? He cited the excellence of North American river systems as the transportation means to a marketplace that could create incredible wealth. It is not mere coincidence that Eisenhower's highway building project coincided with the fastest growth the US economy has ever seen.

Lower gas usage has already greatly depressed road maintenance funding. To eliminate fuel tax will cause demand to grow and thus oil prices to rise as well as destroying the crucial transportation infrastructure.

Do you think that all of the money from gasoline taxes go to road and bridge maintenance and improvement? I do not suggest the elemination of fuel taxes, however. They really are but a drop in the tank compared to the part caused by market speculators. Fuel taxes average only 48.8 cents per gallon currently.

[MountainBilly]

Do you think that all of the money from gasoline taxes go to road and bridge maintenance and improvement?

I suppose that the states are a mixed bag. On the federal level more is spent on highway maintenance than is taken in from fuel taxes. From a 2010 CBA report: "At their current levels, the taxes in effect are insufficient to fully fund the existing amount of federal highway spending. Because spending from the fund has exceeded its revenues for a number of years, on several occasions since 2008 the Highway Trust Fund has needed additional infusions of revenues from the Treasury’s general
fund."

[never too sharp]

Nice cut and paste from a conservative website, Tim.

Allowing further permitting for exploration and drilling would also have an effect on the price of refined petroleum. That, as well as allowing permits for further refinery construction, would help to lower our dependence on foriegn oil (though current refineries are operating far below capacity).Setting restrictions on how much of our oil supply can pass through the hands of the Wall Street gamblers is another option open to the President. These things, it seems to me, are much more appropriate actions than dumping federal dollars into startup companies whose best case goals are to produce a few electric cars for a few millionares to play with, some of which are being produced overseas.

You appear to assume the federal government has control over the sale of the oil pulled from the ground by private companies. This could only be achieved by policies like regulation, something our conservative compatriates will have nothing with which to do.

[Codger_64]

...You appear to assume the federal government has control over the sale of the oil pulled from the ground by private companies. This could only be achieved by policies like regulation, something our conservative compatriates will have nothing with which to do.

You appear to assume that the Federal government does not have means to control the actions of Public Corporations. The FERC is one agency so tasked. It regulates energy producers already. The SEC is another. All it has to do is roll back the current alowed level of speculation to the historic one which allowed less than half of what is currently allowed, for instance. The precident is well established. Then we get to the agencies like the EPA and DOI which have a lot of say in permiting. Remember O'bama declaring a moritorium on Gulf drilling during the debacle of one well head?

[timcsaw]

Nice cut and paste from a conservative website, Tim.

Truth can be uncomfortable. Had I only provided the link, some never would have read it because it's from a "conservative website"... that it's content is essentially true (and rather funny I thought), that wouldn't have mattered to many who take the more-liberal position.

Some things are worth more than just a link.