UPDATE: OOPS, I MAY HAVE UNDERESTIMATED MY PREDICTION BELOW.
WEBUTANTE'S PREDICTION: GAS PRICES @ $6 PER GALLON BY FALL. YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE BANK.
Matt Laurer is a part of the planetary emergency hysteria-glass always half empty-crowd, and it's refreshing to hear Wildman Jim respond to Matt's rhetorical questions on food, housing and gas prices. What to worry about and what not to take so seriously. Of course, all of us know the real reasons gas prices are so high and rising, don't we?
Answer hint: It's not all about Bush and it goes back decades.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Gas prices have absolutely nothing to do with Bush?
Actually, Ellen, not nearly as much as you would like to blame him with. Moreon that next week....
The more objective are predicting possibly $5 by fall. If $5.50 by November you can kiss your boy McCain bye bye.
Web, I hope your prediction of $5-$6 gasoline goes the way of your prediction that 1) John Edwards would drop out of the race because of the love child he sired with an aide and 2) Barack Obama would drop out of the race because of his prediliction for smoking crack during his homosexual encounters. By the way, what ever happened with that deposition? Inquiring minds want to know!
I thought one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was the promise of cheaper oil/gas, not to mention that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war itself. In March, 2003, the average cost of a gallon of gas was $1.73. I paid $3.59 a gallon yesterday to fill up my minivan.
Mission accomplished!
I hope that I'm wrong about my price prediction, but fear I'm not.
As to Iraqi oil, Vienna, it never was intended to belong to the US. Rather to the Iraqi people. I'm afraid I never heard that the war was for that reason. Sure I heard a lot of mean spirited gossip about it, but never could collaborate it in anything credible I saw or read or heard from the Administration.
Larry Lindsey, former Sr. Economic advisor to the Bush Administration, September, 2002:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.
Other articles to peruse:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/03/iraq.oil
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
Interesting take five years later:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41643
It was hardly mean-spirited gossip to ask what the reasons for our going into Iraq were in 2002/2003. Anytime this country sends its sons and daughters to war the questions should be thoughtful - and most importantly, the answers truthful. And that should hold true whether it's the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the upcoming war with Iran.
There are dozens of documented reasons we went to war.
The possibility of having more oil on the world market did not equal it being our, meaning the US's, oil. It meant greater supply equaled a drop in overall prices.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. There are more reasons for the rise.
"It meant greater supply equaled a drop in overall prices."
Well, there may be a greater supply now, but there is no equal drop in overall prices, either per gallon at the station, or per barrel (near $120 today). Care to guess what the cost of a barrel of oil was in March, 2003? Hint: divide today's price by 3 - and then subtract $3. Math was never my strong subject, but I'm pretty sure $37 is less than $120.
A more optimistic view of oil, gas prices and Iraq from the other side of the aisle in 2003:
http://www.rand.org/commentary/010603ATU.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/bg1633.cfm
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett032603.asp
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003300
You're right though, there were lots of reasons for invading Iraq. Oil was certainly one of them, even if it wasn't as sexy as WMDs, women's rights or a liberal democracy in the heart of the middle east.
As far as the price of oil goes, I sense that the dollar's dropping value versus the Euro and Yen (among other foreign currencies) is not helping oil prices. It's a little unnerving to think that OPEC will switch to the Euro. I don't know anything about the gold standard - except that Ron Paul is the only candidate talking about it - so I have no idea if that has any impact on oil prices. I wasn't an economics major in college...
p.s. Congratulations to your family on the recent nuptuals. Sounds and looks like it was a wonderful day for all involved.
You are correct and I'm glad you brought it up again: the dollar's drop in relation to the Euro and Yen---I should have said that more explicitly in my post---exacerbates higher gas prices.
But fundamentally, it, meaning the heavy fluctuations of the dollar in relation to other currencies, all started in earnest when Nixon unhooked it from the gold standard.
There's much more though.
Thank you, Vienna, for your kind words/wishes about our wedding. It was a blessed and truly wonderful event for all.
What was the reasoning for going off the gold standard, and what are the reasons today for going back on it today? With gold prices where they are right now, would the high price per ounce affect supply, demand and value?
It's interesting that the gold standard comes up tangentially in the presidential races every 4 years, and almost every candidate is against it. I think Jack Kemp was the last candidate I can remember that made that part of his platform - although Steve Forbes may have as well.
All good questions which need exploring, Vienna.
More later....
If anybody is naive enough to think the price of gas has nothing to do with Bush's war, they're out of their frigging minds!
The war is all about oil, but not necessarily the way you think. Saddam was moving Iraq away from trading oil in Dollars and was going to deal exclusively in Euros. That would have broken the dollar hegemony that allows us to run enormous trade deficits where we buy useful things in exchange for worthless paper.
An excellent article that explains in depth. http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/petrov/2006/0120.html
Post a Comment