FEDS INVESTIGATE OIL PRICES

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
How about legislating smaller people? We already allow "pay as you weigh" in a few instances. Genetic research ..in conjunction with "good genetic hygiene" could solve many problems.

Keep it tidy

I think that the airlines should have scales at every check in counter, and use them. With each ticket, you're allowed X number of pounds (weighing the flyer AND his/her baggage). Over that number, and you pay a surcharge. It's that simple.

The more weight, the more fuel that it takes the airline to get everything from point A to point B. If you want to move more weight from A to B, then you pay more.

Granted, it is on the line of being politically correct. However, if jet fuel goes to $5 a gallon, the airlines might be able to push it through. By weighing BOTH the flyer and the baggage, it would deflect the accusation (somewhat) that the airlines are discriminating against folks that may weigh more than others.

Tap dancin' on a land mine....

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, thank you for the kind words ..I dunno if I'm one of the good guys ..my mileage surely varies

We're in an economic pickle right now that shows itself most prominently in our energy sector. It's more to do with our economic peril than it is lack of available energy (no lines - plenty of $4/gallon gas). We're going to see a whole lot of displaced anxiety and a good bit of REAL hardship because of it.

... I don't think we can "will" our way out of this situation.

We've mastered other challenges in the past (The Depression, WWII, The Space Race) ..and if properly motivated, there's nothing we cannot accomplish if it's at all possible. It's not going to be accomplished in ease and comfort. There will be sacrifice. There's always some bloodletting in any evolution of this magnitude. That can take many forms and will mean different things to different people. But it is what it is and we're here for the ride whether we like it or not.

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
How about legislating smaller people? We already allow "pay as you weigh" in a few instances. Genetic research ..in conjunction with "good genetic hygiene" could solve many problems.

Keep it tidy

That could be done by imposing high fuel economy standards on all vehicles. Vehicles will become so small that only midgets can drive them.

 

[mrsilv04]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Vehicles will become so small that only midgets can drive them.


Exactly why I own and drive a pickup truck. At 6 foot 3 (but only 200#), I don't fit well into every car out there.

It's not so much how small they are, it's that they are so dang close to the ground. Fall in and climb out.

There's one "car" out there that I would give up my pickup for. A Chevy HHR. Without a sunroof (sunroof versions take up headroom), I fit pretty dang well into those. And they don't sit right on the ground either.

 

[Amkeer]

You want to fix the problem, short oil. It is all a cyclical event. What goes up will come down. It happens in stocks, real estate, interest rates, whatever. The government can't fix the problem since it is part of the problem. They can give the average person the illusion that they are attempting to do something, but its just a smokescreen.

Some things that could effect price in a downward direction:

1. Fear. If positions long in oil fear a fall they will sell.
2. Short interest. Higher short interest will pull oil downward.
3. Lull in hurricane intensities, or lack of hurricanes. If we have a quiet year in the tropics, oil will fall.
4. Economic collapse. If people can't drive, they can't buy goods.

One thing to remember. In the 70's oil was at 70-80 a barrel then fell to about 20. It stayed at between 20-30 till Mr. Trusty took over.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: Al


Something does have to happen bc the system is broken. We will see another Great Depression, or worse if the system is not fixed. I have no idea what to do though.


There's not much we can do to ease the pain of the current generation. When you rack up huge debt, you can either declare bankruptcy or severely curtail consumption to pay it all off. Both are painful. But hey, there are no free lunches in life.

We can help future generations by regulating the crazy OTC deriviatives market that allows people to write crazy "insurance" contracts to insure every kinda of risk imaginable. It takes accountability out of the banking system. Sometimes, its good for people to bear risk because it makes them cautious and careful. But the OTC market allows banks to pass the subprime hot potato to the next sucker in line. So nobody has incentives to be careful at anything including monitoring borrowers. So bad debt rages out of control.

BTW, I don't think we will see a great depression where we slide off a cliff. With all this massive Fed intervention and money pumping, we'll more likely see a 1965-1982 stagflationary decline on steriods.......one where income and growth remains stagnant and inflation chips away at our real wealth for decades.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
we'll more likely see a 1965-1982 stagflationary decline on steriods.......one where income and growth remains stagnant and inflation chips away at our real wealth for decades.


Well, I think I'll take a Titanic that sinks over two decades over the "quick flush" method we've just had over the last 8 years.

You may have gained, but on average and in total ..after you've indexed debt against growth ..we're further behind.

I can't see anyone honestly saying that any economy has truly had "added value" under any sustainable method.

 

[oilyriser]

It won't sink slowly, with the weight of China and India pushing down hard. Both their cultures are geared towards low energy lifestyles via high denisity (low energy) city design. They even go so far as to consume less meat.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: MrCritical
I'm all for lower oil prices. But shouldn't we investigate RX drug prices as well?
Most doctors charge too much for what they do as well. But then so does most everyone except for me.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
It won't sink slowly, with the weight of China and India pushing down hard. Both their cultures are geared towards low energy lifestyles via high denisity (low energy) city design. They even go so far as to consume less meat.
I would say that is because untill recently with their income the goodies is life unaffordable but now they are somewhat prosperous and would like the goodies in life like the rest of the people do.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
we'll more likely see a 1965-1982 stagflationary decline on steriods.......one where income and growth remains stagnant and inflation chips away at our real wealth for decades.


Well, I think I'll take a Titanic that sinks over two decades over the "quick flush" method we've just had over the last 8 years.

You may have gained, but on average and in total ..after you've indexed debt against growth ..we're further behind.

I can't see anyone honestly saying that any economy has truly had "added value" under any sustainable method.
Gary you said: we're further behind... it is called upside down in todays economy. Keeps the clueless from getting offended.

 

[oilyriser]

And the banks get bailed out if they fail in their push for more and more consumption.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


Well, I think I'll take a Titanic that sinks over two decades over the "quick flush" method we've just had over the last 8 years.



A lot of people don't know this, but the 1965-1982 bear cycle was actually worse than the Great Depression in real terms. It just happened so slowly, people barely noticed that they lost more. What we will see in the next few decades is a repeat performance on steriods.

Take Japan. It's amazing to me that people haven't seen the devastation their depression has had on their society. Massive government intervention supported a gradually downward trajectory rather than a plunge. Still, this is an economy that has virtually no domestic demand and therefore lives off the export economy. Still, in order to support that export economy, they've had to keep the yen cheap and inflation in check. How? By pummeling their own workers by keeping wages artificially low. Young Japanese are delaying marriages, not having kids and can't even buy big ticket items that their own companies produce. Despite all the envy of their huge export surplus, it has come at a great cost to their society. There are no free lunches.

It'll be interesting what direction we take in the next few decades.

 

[VeeDubb]

double post

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
but the 1965-1982 bear cycle was actually worse than the Great Depression in real terms.


In that time 27 evolutions of people entering the job market over that same span too. Lots of time to adjust to a down turn. What you're really arguing about is maneuverability to be exempt from it.

Are we not in major decay? Are we not in further debt and is not our U$ worth more as toilet paper? So just where is the horn of plenty supposed to show up? Or was it never going to show up and we're really arguing the selection process on where its going to draw its harvest from??

 

[oilyriser]

The high consumption way of life will not be possible anymore as 2.8 billion others are working hard to get access to the same goods.

 

[Gary Allan]

We never had to enable them and certainly not allow this rate of growth. They didn't find prosperity on their own. It was 100% fostered with Western currency.

 

[oilyriser]

Our greed for cheap goods led us to set up factories overseas, where they got our technology for free.

 

[VeeDubb]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


In that time 27 evolutions of people entering the job market over that same span too. Lots of time to adjust to a down turn. What you're really arguing about is maneuverability to be exempt from it.


Actually, it was more of a social statement. I'm not arguing anything for myself. In either case, savers get hammered. I'm simply saying there are downsides to both and there are no easy answers. I'm saying as a society, we've got work to do. Me personally, I'll manage in either cycle, but I will have to pay in the form of doing more work and taking more risk. Believe me, I'd much prefer the old days where I bought the S&P 500 index and forgot about it. But those days are gone.

Quote:

Are we not in major decay? Are we not in further debt and is not our U$ worth more as toilet paper? So just where is the horn of plenty supposed to show up? Or was it never going to show up and we're really arguing the selection process on where its going to draw its harvest from??


None of our markets have corrected fully yet. We are still well above equilibrium prices for all asset classes. Yes, we have decayed relative to the peak, but not relative to century old historic trends. That peak was artificial.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, you know I can't dwell in strictly economic terms due to lack of mojo in that area.

Quote:
Yes, we have decayed relative to the peak, but not relative to century old historic trends. That peak was artificial.


The 100 year benchmark gives a different view than the 50 year benchmark. I see no reason to use it. Let's go 1000 years if it makes us feel better ..10 years if it doesn't

I think that we cannot talk economics without a social component. "For the sake of growth" is indifferent to the society's needs ..and ..absolutely in our case ..has been of no benefit of absolute value.

That is, when does "for the sake of growth" prove to be a disservice to those sustaining the medium which facilitates and sustains the mechanisms and environment that it operates in?

If you can't rationalize the social component into the mix, then simply program the pure economic science into computers ..put your money into them ..and sit back and let pure economic science dictate your outcome.

From Band of Angels

Quote:
You're no blue blood any more, honey.