If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Bush says increasing supply is the solution to high gas prices, mentions nothing of decreasing demand. Omission Accomplished   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 200
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2008 at 5:01 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



200 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-05 04:33:30 PM
"We'll analyze some of these suggestions, but the key is that we think long-term for America, that we diversify away from oil and we're wise and build new refineries and increase supply for the American consumers," Bush said in the interview on the White House grounds with his wife, Laura.

To be fair, he did toss that tidbit in.

Yet somehow I think he's more on the "increasing supply" side than the "render oil moot" side.

Awash in oil and oblivious to the fact that some day the faucet will be turned off.
 
2008-05-05 04:35:08 PM
"Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand." - OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, April, 2008
 
2008-05-05 04:41:09 PM
Whamdangler: "Oil prices, there is a common understanding that has nothing to do with supply and demand." - OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, April, 2008

And if you can't trust OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, who can you trust?
 
2008-05-05 04:45:52 PM
Sleeping Monkey: And if you can't trust OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, who can you trust?

He does seem to know a little about how to affect oil prices.
 
2008-05-05 05:00:03 PM
Oil companies are making record profits. Isn't that price gouging? Increase price, record profits? Doesn't that insinuate that prices shouldn't have gone up??

/yeah, I don't understand the oil industry.
 
2008-05-05 05:07:35 PM
Of course it is price gouging. Profits are insanely high, and it is on something that you cannot go without.

They need to tax the friggin oil companies, regulate them, or both...but that will never happen.
 
2008-05-05 05:08:15 PM
DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

/ fark the baby seals, etc

// I take public transit and do not own a vehicle.

/// That makes me a hypocrite, I suppose.
 
2008-05-05 05:08:22 PM
FortKnox: Oil companies are making record profits. Isn't that price gouging? Increase price, record profits? Doesn't that insinuate that prices shouldn't have gone up??

/yeah, I don't understand the oil industry.


I think you do.
 
2008-05-05 05:09:55 PM
Whamdangler: Sleeping Monkey: And if you can't trust OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, who can you trust?

He does seem to know a little about how to affect oil prices.


Then I'm sure he knows that if the demand for oil were cut in half tomorrow, he'd have a hard time getting rid of all that extra oil at $120/barrel.
 
2008-05-05 05:10:22 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.


Except that will do nothing to offset oil prices which are set on a global level.
 
2008-05-05 05:10:48 PM
Sleeping Monkey: Whamdangler: Sleeping Monkey: And if you can't trust OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah el al-Badri, who can you trust?

He does seem to know a little about how to affect oil prices.

Then I'm sure he knows that if the demand for oil were cut in half tomorrow, he'd have a hard time getting rid of all that extra oil at $120/barrel.


Why account for the impossible?
 
2008-05-05 05:11:11 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

/ fark the baby seals, etc

// I take public transit and do not own a vehicle.

/// That makes me a hypocrite, I suppose.



Not at all. Because even if you don't own a car, high gas prices affect food prices, airline ticket prices, etc.
 
2008-05-05 05:11:18 PM
Demand is down in the United States by about 1.4% which is remarkable. Too bad that it is such an underreported event.
 
2008-05-05 05:11:36 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.


Until it rears its ugly head again in a few decades (at most)...
 
2008-05-05 05:12:36 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.


Fail.
 
2008-05-05 05:12:56 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

/ fark the baby seals, etc

// I take public transit and do not own a vehicle.

/// That makes me a hypocrite, I suppose.


If they drill Alaska it doesn't mean they will sell the US the oil...it will go to the highest bidder!

/so problem not solved!
 
2008-05-05 05:16:17 PM
Reducing demand would increase the supply Smitty but you have to think past the end of your nos. More supply is also needed however.
 
2008-05-05 05:16:30 PM
QU!RK1019: Why account for the impossible?

Its not impossible. Its improbable.
 
2008-05-05 05:16:51 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.


It would take 3 years or more for that oil to get to the market. This will do nothing in the short term.

There really aren't any short term solutions other than increasing supply and reducing demand. Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.
 
2008-05-05 05:17:58 PM
Sleeping Monkey:
Then I'm sure he knows that if the demand for oil were cut in half tomorrow, he'd have a hard time getting rid of all that extra oil at $120/barrel.


And yet outside of your homeworld of Fantasy Land, the demand for oil will never be "cut in half". But let's say that Tinkerbelle showed up, waved her magic wand, and cut demand in half. Would the price of oil lower? Not a chance in hell. Why? Because it's not like they're dependent on our money to the same extent that we're dependent on their oil. They already have more money than they could ever possibly spend, plus they know that we're going to have to buy the oil sometime. We either buy a lot of it quickly, or we buy a lot of it over a longer period of time. The bottom line is that we're still going to buy it. We know it, and they sure as hell know it.

...and really, so what? They're charging this much for gas because the market continues to bear it. I haven't exactly noticed a decrease in the number of douchebags in SUVs and Hummers. So apparently, we're not nearly as concerned with "high oil prices" as we like to pretend we are.
 
2008-05-05 05:18:40 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved postponed.


FTFY.
=Smidge=
 
2008-05-05 05:19:56 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

The dumbest fark posts always get the boldest characters.
 
2008-05-05 05:20:07 PM
chapman: Demand is down in the United States by about 1.4% which is remarkable. Too bad that it is such an underreported event.

I believe you, just haven't heard about it either. Source?
 
2008-05-05 05:20:38 PM
1) Short term oil supply is fixed.
2) Long term oil supply is limited. There are a few places where new fields could be discovered/tapped, but many of those will be expensive to extract. Unless there is long term, predicable price stability at higher per barrel prices these will be risky at best.
3) ANWR fields are big, but small relative to the global oil supply. Drilling in ANWR will not affect the wholesale price of oil.
 
2008-05-05 05:20:50 PM
ElRonHubbardsBalls: Of course it is price gouging. Profits are insanely high, and it is on something that you cannot go without.

They need to tax the friggin oil companies, regulate them, or both...but that will never happen.


Yeah, because oil companies don't pay corporate taxes. [rolling eyes]

How about the federal reserve stops devaluing our dollar? Ever heard of inflation?
 
2008-05-05 05:20:52 PM
Sleeping Monkey: Its not impossible. Its improbable.
It is not improbable, it has already happened.
Link (new window)
 
2008-05-05 05:21:53 PM
Doesn't matter too much how much our demand goes down when India and China are ready to fill the void once we've lessened our dependence upon the oil.

We're only a part of the demand chain; not the center of it.
 
2008-05-05 05:22:08 PM
vernonFL:
Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.


Uhhh, why? I keep hearing this "they wouldn't be up and running for years" horseshiat, but nobody ever bothers to explain WHY they believe that building an Oil Refinery is a multi-year project. A Refinery isn't exactly a moonbase, and it's not like they have to build them one at a time. We could easily build several dozen of them in the next two months, were we so inclined.
 
2008-05-05 05:23:29 PM
vernonFL: There really aren't any short term solutions other than increasing supply and reducing demand. Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.

To me that sounds like all the more need to urgently start making them. I don't know, but that whole "planning ahead" thing might work out in the long run.
 
2008-05-05 05:23:40 PM
Sleeping Monkey: QU!RK1019: Why account for the impossible?

Its not impossible. Its improbable.


Sure, just ask the sperm whale and the bowl of petunias..
 
2008-05-05 05:23:56 PM
I'm guessing Hillary's increasing demand tactic for this summer will help.
 
2008-05-05 05:23:58 PM
And the crash of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with high gas prices.....nope, not at all....move along, citizen.
 
2008-05-05 05:24:55 PM
What, was the DUH tag broken?

I remember one of the first Ari Fleischer press conferences, back pre-9/11. A reporter asked if the Bush administration would encourage people to conserve natural resources, and Fleischer's response was, "Absolutely not." He then went on to equate gross overconsumption with freedom.
 
2008-05-05 05:25:12 PM
Tyee: Reducing demand would increase the supply Smitty but you have to think past the end of your nos. More supply is also needed however.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

/ you're welcome
 
2008-05-05 05:25:53 PM
Corpus Delecti: Uhhh, why? I keep hearing this "they wouldn't be up and running for years" horseshiat, but nobody ever bothers to explain WHY they believe that building an Oil Refinery is a multi-year project. A Refinery isn't exactly a moonbase, and it's not like they have to build them one at a time. We could easily build several dozen of them in the next two months, were we so inclined.

Have you ever been on the grounds of a refinery? Do you know any engineers? It is not a simple process to go about building a functional refinery even before all environmental considerations. It takes years just to get past the environmental impact reports and obtain government approval. The actual physical construction is time consuming but hardly the only concern.
 
2008-05-05 05:26:51 PM
igotnothing: And the crash of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with high gas prices.....nope, not at all....move along, citizen.

Something amazingly ignored by every left-wing environut. The solution is not in curbing our demand by some 20%, or whatever impossible and inconsequential amount we try to target. As mentioned above, India and China are becoming rapidly larger consumers of the black stuff.
 
2008-05-05 05:26:52 PM
wolvernova: ElRonHubbardsBalls: Of course it is price gouging. Profits are insanely high, and it is on something that you cannot go without.

They need to tax the friggin oil companies, regulate them, or both...but that will never happen.

Yeah, because oil companies don't pay corporate taxes. [rolling eyes]

How about the federal reserve stops devaluing our dollar? Ever heard of inflation?


Regulation is still a good idea. There needs to be regulation on things that the american people cannot avoid. If Wonderbread suddenly quadrupled the price of bread, we'd go with Sunbeam. If they both raised the price, we'd eat peanut butter and jelly with our fingers. As of right now, you can't avoid oil. They raise the price, and we have to pay it. There should definitely be regulation there. You can get the world on boycotting turnips, but oil is just... exactly what it is.
 
2008-05-05 05:27:37 PM
Corpus Delecti: They're charging this much for gas because the market continues to bear it. I haven't exactly noticed a decrease in the number of douchebags in SUVs and Hummers. So apparently, we're not nearly as concerned with "high oil prices" as we like to pretend we are.

images.jupiterimages.com
 
2008-05-05 05:30:23 PM
FortKnox: Oil companies are making record profits. Isn't that price gouging? Increase price, record profits? Doesn't that insinuate that prices shouldn't have gone up??

I've posted this a lot lately, but the profit margin for oil companies is 8-10% (8-10 cents profit on every dollar of income), which isn't extraordinary, it's actually about average for all businesses: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s_qpmu.html

Sure, a single company can post profit equal to the GDP of Sweden, but that's because consumers keep throwing cash at 'em. Lots and lots of cash. And lots and lots. For which the oil companies supply mind-boggling amounts of fuel. It's still only a small fraction of total revenue.

Gouging is taking advantage of an emergency to pump prices up far above "fair market value". So define "fair", then we can go ahead and write federal legislation setting the price for all goods in the US and really fark up the economy.
 
2008-05-05 05:30:29 PM
vernonFL: Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

It would take 3 years or more for that oil to get to the market. This will do nothing in the short term.

There really aren't any short term solutions other than increasing supply and reducing demand. Its easy to say 'build more refineries' but they wouldn't be up and running for years.


There is one short term solution, conservation. If everyone would slow down and drive 45 on the highway and 25 in the city that would reduce consumption by increasing your miles per gallon and drive the price of gasoline down. No politician is serious about conservation though, if they were they would be advocateing the re-institution of a 55 mph speed limit or even a 45 mph speed limit. I think they should go further then that and require a speed governer on all new cars that limited them to those speeds.
 
2008-05-05 05:31:46 PM
chapman: It takes years just to get past the environmental impact reports and obtain government approval.

Right there is what government can do for us. But guess what, they ain't gonna do it.
 
2008-05-05 05:34:30 PM
Galen_Rasputin: If everyone would slow down and drive 45 on the highway and 25 in the city that would reduce consumption by increasing your miles per gallon and drive the price of gasoline down.

Would doing that in the US also stop worldwide demand from growing?
 
2008-05-05 05:34:33 PM
Diogenes:
To be fair, he did toss that tidbit in.

Yet somehow I think he's more on the "increasing supply" side than the "render oil moot" side.

Awash in oil and oblivious to the fact that some day the faucet will be turned off.


Because fixing an oil-based recession would involve manipulating the oil supply, rather than betting on technological progress which will be viable in ten years at the soonest? Whoever came up with this approach has his feet firmly on the ground, I'd say.

Also, the 'faucet' will never be turned off: producting synthetic oil is not particularly complicated or difficult, it's just expensive. Even if we exhaust our current easily-accessible geological reserves, it's not like the chemicals are going to magically become impossible to obtain. They're just treated biomass, after all.
 
2008-05-05 05:35:15 PM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Right there is what government can do for us. But guess what, they ain't gonna do it.

Exactly, Democrats in particular (but some Republicans as well) complain in droves about gas prices but don't take reasonable steps within their power to do anything about it. EIR's shouldn't be waived, but they could be streamlined. Anwar would have been pumping oil for 3 years if it was approved the first time around in 1995. We have the power to take these steps but then people would lose out on two key interests, the power to handle environmental issues and the power to use oil companies as a political tool.
 
2008-05-05 05:36:05 PM
Eric_PDX: DRILL ALASKA

Problem solved.

/ fark the baby seals, etc

// I take public transit and do not own a vehicle.

/// That makes me a hypocrite, I suppose.


No, it just makes you ignorant to the facts at hand. But ignorance is bliss, so enjoy.
 
2008-05-05 05:38:21 PM
wolvernova: Something amazingly ignored by every left-wing environut. The solution is not in curbing our demand by some 20%, or whatever impossible and inconsequential amount we try to target. As mentioned above, India and China are becoming rapidly larger consumers of the black stuff.

India and China together still don't even come close to our levels of consumption. So you still don't think reduction of demand will amount to anything? Huh?
 
2008-05-05 05:38:22 PM
question here:

is anyone else troubled by the whole:

"dammit otto, you're driving an suv. wasting gas, destroying the enviornment"

"dammit otto, you didn't buy enough gas, and causing XOM to have a bad 1st quarter"

what do they want from us. I felt like the whole "exxon didn't make enough" was them chiding us
 
2008-05-05 05:39:32 PM
shouldn't there be post after post chastising subby on his/her/its reading comprehension and epic failure?

Oh, it's about bush? Never mind.
 
2008-05-05 05:42:15 PM
irresponsible
 
2008-05-05 05:43:30 PM
Can someone please explain how a windfall profit tax will lower prices at the pump? Obama and Clinton love this idea because it coincides with their a lot bases' semi-socialist mentality, but I have not heard how this will actually help me. Are they planning some sort of tax rebate with the tax?
 
Displayed 50 of 200 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report