• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Interim Thread of USA General Elections (DAWN OF THE VEEP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
reilo said:
So, Milbank's piece was sarcastic after all, and the news networks and pundits ran with it as if he was being serious?

smh.


Where the fuck did he say in that particular article that he was being sarcastic? The fact that you just found out means to me that he wasn't being sarcastic.

Me was being a bad journalist at best and a dick head at worst.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
Certainly if you're a relative political novice, but not if you have decades of national political experience, and especially not if you've been Governor or even Mayor of a major city, etc. It takes a certain level of arrogance to apply for any job that has competition--that point is largely meaningless IMO. It takes arrogance for, say, me to say I'm the best person to lead this country, but not, say, a former President. The fact that it's a powerful position does not mean one cannot legitimately claim to be a good contender.


Abe fucking Lincoln. Now how many people think he was a bad president? So basically your whole point in that quote of yours makes no sense at all.

Thanks for trying. :)
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
siamesedreamer said:
I'm trying to figure out how what he's proposing is reaching across the aisle.
by conceding the Republican point on offshore drilling even though it serves no one's purpose but Big Oil?
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
you know Im getting tired of people using the 8% earnings of oil companies.

Its shit math

1) Earnings per share is the magic number, those are through the roof.

2) if company X made 50 billion last quarter but spent 40 million, they made 20% return and a 10 billion dollar profit. Prices and expenses double, they still make 20%, but now made 20 billion. 20 is more than 10. Earnings per share is double. Stock price is up.

Just b/c %earnings stay the same doesnt mean they arent making windfall profits.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
laserbeam said:
To Expand on this. The amount of oil he wants to release from the strategic reserve is enough for 3 days. Its a farce that is mean tto appeal to the uneducated. He says I will release 70 million barrels of Oil and people go oooh thats alot when its insignificant. Any effect would be short term and very limited


Again your knowledge of the subject is small if that's what you really think is happening here.
Let me link you to a story on CNNMoney.com

Peter Beutel, an analyst with energy risk management firm Cameron Hanover, downplayed the impact that Obama's SPR release would have on oil prices. Beutel said that 70 million barrels represent only about three-and-a-half days of U.S. fuel consumption and would have a limited impact on prices, driving them down by $5 to $10 a barrel.

However, Beutel also suggests that the government could have a dramatic impact on consumer prices if it sells its oil at a substantially lower price to the refineries - in a type of deal known as a "netback."

In netback deals, the price of crude is calculated by subtracting the costs of refining, marketing, and transportation, along with profits, from the market price of the end products.

"If he sells it under a netback deal, it would fall under $100 [a barrel] very quickly, and maybe under $80," said Beutel. That kind of reduction could lead to a decline of up to 80 cents per gallon of unleaded gasoline.

Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer, projected a more dramatic reduction in oil prices, noting that Obama's SPR plan could "cut prices in half."

Gheit said that prior releases from the SPR during the administrations of former Presidents Bush and Clinton during the 1990s were "knock-out punches" that caused oil prices to drop dramatically. He said that to maximize the impact, which is primarily psychological, Obama should not provide hard numbers to make it harder for speculators to project future prices.

"We should not have a limit on what we will release," said Gheit. "That is the best way to keep speculators off balance."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?postversion=2008080417

So no if done right it could be cause some effect. It hurts me to see so many people say no to damn near everything. And yes Nancy Pelosi pisses me off everyday with this non-vote BS.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
god, this incessant coverage on the horse race filled with hokey metaphors is starting to wear a bit thin. instead of showing how Obama/McCain 'flip flopped' on offshore drilling, why not go into an analysis of what said plan hopes to accomplish and how it won't do a single damn thing to that end?

thank god for the Discovery Network; i'm learning how rubber is made right now.
 

APF

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Abe fucking Lincoln. Now how many people think he was a bad president? So basically your whole point in that quote of yours makes no sense at all.

Thanks for trying. :)
Huh? Smarter trolls please.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
scorcho said:
god, this incessant coverage on the horse race filled with hokey metaphors is starting to wear a bit thin. instead of showing how Obama/McCain 'flip flopped' on offshore drilling, why not go into an analysis of what said plan hopes to accomplish and how it won't do a single damn thing to that end?

thank god for the Discovery Network; i'm learning how rubber is made right now.


Honestly, because network producers figure that what you want will be too hard for people to figure out and will turn the channel.

So in return what we get is "dat bitch flipped flopped" or "WTF did blah blah play the race card?" It's the people tune in to hear 20 minutes worth of yelling at each other with nothing being said or the explain postions inside and out and analyzing those positions.

And lets be honest some of these people on TV aren't qualified enough to even understand policy issues for real.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
scorcho said:
god, this incessant coverage on the horse race filled with hokey metaphors is starting to wear a bit thin. instead of showing how Obama/McCain 'flip flopped' on offshore drilling, why not go into an analysis of what said plan hopes to accomplish and how it won't do a single damn thing to that end?

thank god for the Discovery Network; i'm learning how rubber is made right now.


pretty much.. NPR, the economist, foreign affairs and FT are my news sources... the 'news' is akin to those Sunday morning NFL handicapping shows.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
Peter Beutel, eh?

CNN Money in September 2005 said:
"Price declines could be slow this week, maybe with a bubble burst at some point in the future," said analyst Peter Beutel, president of Cameron Hanover. "It does appear we've turned the corner here in this market. I don't think we'll see prices at these levels again anytime in the next five years."

...

Crude oil traded above $68 last Wednesday, about two days before the storm made landfall, and not far from the trading high above $70 after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast last month.

...

Beutel sees oil prices falling all the way to the $25 to $35 a barrel range in late 2006 or 2007.

Wooooo!
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
Huh? Smarter trolls please.

Im NOT going to go on a back and forth BS thing with you tonight. The point is that you made it seem as if someone had years apon years of "experience" then them thinking they could be president was understandable and okay.

While some in say "OBAMA's" position with less "experience" would have to be arrogant because he or she wouldn't have the "experience" to fall back on to consider themselves "qualified" to run the USA.

I pointed out Abe Lincoln which most realistic people point to as one of the top 5 (8 at worst) presidents of all time. Which further means that your quote doesn't make sense because if someone as good as Abe Lincoln was president before with the same amount of experience that Obama has, then Obama doesn't have to be overly arrogant to think he could be president.

One would only have to look at actual fact that someone with the same amount of experience as the man on my penny and five dollar bill can be president and do a damn good job at it.
 

laserbeam

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Honestly, because network producers figure that what you want will be too hard for people to figure out and will turn the channel.

So in return what we get is "dat bitch flipped flopped" or "WTF did blah blah play the race card?" It's the people tune in to hear 20 minutes worth of yelling at each other with nothing being said or the explain postions inside and out and analyzing those positions.

And lets be honest some of these people on TV aren't qualified enough to even understand policy issues for real.

Its all part of the dumbing of America. Its why shit like Anna Nicole smith dying was non stop for days while people dying in wars,genocide etc is ignored. The media decides whats important and mushes everyones brain with horseshit.

This by Jibjab is perfect summary of it
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mandark said:


I like you Mandark, so I'll ask you this question. Do you not think that selling that sweet crude oil to refineries at a nice sweet discount over a period of one month (about 2.5 million barrels a day) at about $80 a barrel will not lower gas prices in this month and maybe the beginning of next month.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
mckmas8808 said:
I like you Mandark, so I'll ask you this question. Do you not think that selling that sweet crude oil to refineries at a nice sweet discount over a period of one month (about 2.5 million barrels a day) at about $80 a barrel will not lower gas prices in this month and maybe the beginning of next month.
yes, in the same way that the mere psychological effect of offshore drilling will somehow end the bubble we're seeing now.
 

APF

Member
mckmas8808 said:
Im NOT going to go on a back and forth BS thing with you tonight.
Right, because your post was moronic and had little to do with anything I was saying, and to continue to argue whatever it is you were trying to "pwn" me with would be fruitless.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
mckmas8808 said:
I like you Mandark, so I'll ask you this question. Do you not think that selling that sweet crude oil to refineries at a nice sweet discount over a period of one month (about 2.5 million barrels a day) at about $80 a barrel will not lower gas prices in this month and maybe the beginning of next month.

How?

If consumers are willing to pay ~$4.00/gallon for gas at the pump and oil is supply-limited, then why would prices drop? I assume prices would have to drop globally (why sell oil at $80 in the US when you could send it elsewhere for $120?) and this would represent about 2% of the global supply for one month.

Selling at a discount and buying back the same amount at a market price is basically a cash giveaway to refineries in hopes that the savings get passed along to consumers. Strikes me as being a lot like the gas tax holiday.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's some way this would work. But I'd need to read a logical explanation from someone I trust, rather than quotes from analysts who can't seem to lose their jobs no matter how hard they try.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
scorcho said:
yes, in the same way that the mere psychological effect of offshore drilling will somehow end the bubble we're seeing now.

Again many Obama people and people on the left always talk about alternative energy and how it will change the world. I agree with that premise.

But why also act like we can't and should do anything at all now? I agree that the removal of the federal tax (gas tax holiday crap) is pure BS and it hurts that infrasturcture tax monies.

But this 70 million barrels thing is NOT (I repeat NOT) suppose to end the bubble. Obama doesn't say it would and nobody here is arguing that it would. What it would possible do is add some short term relief.

Or are we just going to give up and say that the oil/gas companies would just raise the prices after buying the oil from the reserve for say 30% off?
 

laserbeam

Banned
mckmas8808 said:
Again your knowledge of the subject is small if that's what you really think is happening here.
Let me link you to a story on CNNMoney.com



http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?postversion=2008080417

So no if done right it could be cause some effect. It hurts me to see so many people say no to damn near everything. And yes Nancy Pelosi pisses me off everyday with this non-vote BS.

It would be nothing more then bullshit mental relief that Obama criticizes Mccain for. In a few months it would all be back to normal if it drops significantly at all. Oil companies are loving this situation and there is nothing to force them to lower prices. Oil Just like in 10 years were not gonna import any foreign oil.

Fact is until we are free from oil that prices are only gonna go up as Oil fields around the world continue to reach peak production and continue to decline.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
mckmas8808 said:
But why also act like we can't and should do anything at all now? I agree that the removal of the federal tax (gas tax holiday crap) is pure BS and it hurts that infrasturcture tax monies.

Even accepting that we should "do anything at all" does not mean that we actually can accomplish much in the short term, or that this policy would be the one that's effective in doing so.
 
I think Obama should really hit McCain hard for mocking "inflating tires" to improve MPG.

Personally I think checking tire pressure is a great way for the average person to do their own small part to improve their gas mileage. Race car drivers and enthusiast will tell you it makes a difference. McCain and company could come off looking elitist if Obama played it right.

Plus checking your own tires fits in with Obama's whole message that the people can help change America from the ground up instead of trying to solely rely on politicians to fix everything.
 

Tamanon

Banned
It actually is ironic that people who usually spout off about personal responsibility and the need for individuals to do something instead of the government would ridicule simple conservation methods.
 
The Chosen One said:
I think Obama should really hit McCain hard for mocking "inflating tires" to improve MPG.

Personally I think checking tire pressure is a great way for the average person to do their own small part to improve their gas mileage. Race car drivers and enthusiast will tell you it makes a difference. McCain and company could come off looking elitist if Obama played it right.

Plus checking your own tires fits in with Obama's whole message that the people can help change America from the ground up instead of trying to solely rely on politicians to fix everything.
THIS

Tamanon said:
It actually is ironic that people who usually spout off about personal responsibility and the need for individuals to do something instead of the government would ridicule simple conservation methods.
And this. It's to the point where the repugs will simply spin Obama's every stance as bad and then take the opposite one regardless of the merits of the stance.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mandark said:
How?

If consumers are willing to pay ~$4.00/gallon for gas at the pump and oil is supply-limited, then why would prices drop? I assume prices would have to drop globally (why sell oil at $80 in the US when you could send it elsewhere for $120?) and this would represent about 2% of the global supply for one month.

Selling at a discount and buying back the same amount at a market price is basically a cash giveaway to refineries in hopes that the savings get passed along to consumers. Strikes me as being a lot like the gas tax holiday.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's some way this would work. But I'd need to read a logical explanation from someone I trust, rather than quotes from analysts who can't seem to lose their jobs no matter how hard they try.

YES THAT'S THE POINT! But it doesn't have the BS part were we lose billions of dollar from the Highway Trust fund.

facing a $3.4 billion shortfall. And the federal transportation department says every $1 billion in highway spending creates 34,779 jobs, which means the a gas tax holiday could cost 300,000 construction jobs.

link to this info

So you lose jobs and you literally taking more away from the country's infrastructure. So in a way it's similar but without the raw negatives.
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
There's a post by Brad DeLong that would be totally appropriate to the tire gauge issue. He was taking the piss out of Robert Samuelson* for Samuelson's criticism of Al Gore's encouragement of personal conservation.

It pretty neatly explained the choice between taking individual measures vs. collective action, and how you shouldn't criticize the first as ineffective if you don't support the second.

Now someone find it for me.


*Or someone Robert Samuelson-ish enough to be confused with Robert Samuelson in my memory. Sebastien Mallaby maybe.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
a: what would prevent oil companies from taking this subsidized crude and not passing the savings onto consumers?

b: how is providing a subsidy to refineries making good use of our tax dollars? the issue with the gas tax holiday isn't just the lost of money for our infrastructure, but also the lack of any guarantee that prices won't just rise up to meet demand.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tamanon said:
It actually is ironic that people who usually spout off about personal responsibility and the need for individuals to do something instead of the government would ridicule simple conservation methods.

Hell yes preach it brotha. So we have the same guys that say screw welfare, affirmative action needs to be done away with, screw national health care, etc. And many of the reasons that are against these things is because it takes away from that particular person receiving the benefits ability to have personal responsibility.

Now dems like Obama ask people to have personal responsiblity and they joke on him and say it's stupid even though there is undeniable evidence that it's true.
 

APF

Member
So lecturing us on the scientific benefits of actions that race car drivers and enthusiasts might be inclined to do will somehow paint McCain as an elitist?
 

Mandark

Small balls, big fun!
scorcho said:
a: what would prevent oil companies from taking this subsidized crude and not passing the savings onto consumers?

b: how is providing a subsidy to refineries making good use of our tax dollars? the issue with the gas tax holiday isn't just the lost of money for our infrastructure, but also the lack of any guarantee that prices won't just rise up to meet demand.

c: how is taking money out of the General Fund better than taking money away that's designated for infrastructure? We could do a gas tax holiday, have the General Fund pay money into the Highway Trust fund and get the same exact result.

d: why not just cut checks directly to citizens, rather than hope for trickle down?

e: how does subsidizing one fiftieth of the global supply cause a 30-50% drop in price?

f: Here is that link, I am so awesome.

Fatty DeLong said:
Mark Thoma does an evil deed by telling me that somebody should take note of Robert Samuelson. And he's right: somebody should. But why does it have to be me?

First, some history: The last time we tried to put a "Pigou tax" on carbon emissions--back in 1993 with the Gore BTU tax proposal--Robert Samuelson opposed it: "Congress," he said, "should... deliver a firm message: We won't pass this [energy] tax... [without] more spending cuts. This would give Congress more time to evaluate the energy tax and put more pressure on the White House to cut spending.... Congress... [should not] be stampeded."

Remember that: Robert Samuelson did not want Congress to be "stampeded" into including a carbon tax in the 1993 reconciliation bill.

Economists believe that things work well when the incentives individuals face--the good or ill that their actions cause for themselves--match up to the good or ill of the impact that their actions have on society as a whole. Thus our liking for energy taxes as the best way to start controlling global warming: individuals don't feel the harm that their greenhouse gas emissions do to other people via their effect on the climate, but a tax on carbon makes them feel that harm in their pocketbook and so matches up individual incentives with social outcomes. That's what the Gore BTU tax proposal was trying to do.

There are in general two ways that you can match private incentives with social outcomes. The first is to take individuals' preferences over material goods as given, and use taxes and subsidies to raise the prices of goods that have negative and lower the prices of goods that have positive "externalities," as economists call them. The second is to try to shift individuals' preferences: appeal to altruism, or to the moral sense, or to the mirror neurons to get people to feel good about doing deeds that have positive externalities, and rearrange social markers of status and approval to shift people's preferences over goods without changing their material characteristics or prices. Economists generally prefer to work on the tax-and-subsidy side rather than on the preferences side, out of a disciplinary commitment to the idea that cash-on-the-barrelhead is strong and pats-on-the-back are weak. But we do what we can: if we cannot pass a BTU tax, telling people who fund carbon offsets or drive fuel-efficient cars that they are good, responsible, moral people is a perfectly orthodox and constructive thing to do.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
scorcho said:
a: what would prevent oil companies from taking this subsidized crude and not passing the savings onto consumers?

b: how is providing a subsidy to refineries making good use of our tax dollars? the issue with the gas tax holiday isn't just the lost of money for our infrastructure, but also the lack of any guarantee that prices won't just rise up to meet demand.


Now that's an interesting question and one I would LOOOOVE to see debated day in and day out instead of OBAMA FLIPPED FLOPPED BITCHESS!!!111one11!! that I see on TV.

Now to answer your question, I'm going to have to ask you a question. Why do you think the demand would rise given the time of the year?


Because honestly passing the gas tax holiday at the beginning of the summer season is also one of the dumbest things McCain could have ever wanted to do when demand month to month rises every year. The summer months are always demand heavy.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
APF said:
So lecturing us on the scientific benefits of actions that race car drivers and enthusiasts might be inclined to do will somehow paint McCain as an elitist?


McCain is an elitist for having the gull to believe that Americans are too stupid to understand something from race car drivers and enthusiasts.

It's like a qualified doctor giving you health tips and McCain saying, "lol WTF the American people are smart enough to understand the advice that not smoking will decrease your chances of getting lung cancer."

Yes that's an elitist attitude.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mandark said:
If prices are determined by demand then why would we need to subsidize the producers?


Hey I'm going to be honest here. Because it helps win elections. We ALL know that demand will go down. And if something hugely bad doesn't happen in the middle east for the rest of the year, if a bad hurricane doesn't crush the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, and if some country like Nigeria or Venezula can keep their oil pumps going then we can all assume that the price of oil will stay below an average of $130 a barrel for the rest of the year right?

And if that's the cast and lets say for sake of argument that it stays at $120 a barrel that means that national gas prices should be about $3.50 nationally. So my point is do something, ANYTHING out of the normal that would honestly bring the price of oil lower by say $5 a barrel which could be a change of say 12 cents a gallon to about #3.38 nationally and run on it till November.

Me and you know what the country will be like if McCain wins. And it won't be good. Do what you have to do. And it's not like he would be lying.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
APF said:
You're just full of brilliance tonight.

do you ever have conversations in real life, or do you just enter a room, spew forth bile, then ignore what everyone says, mock them openly for unrelated things and then walk away?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
StoOgE said:
do you ever have conversations in real life, or do you just enter a room, spew forth bile, then ignore what everyone says, mock them openly for unrelated things and then walk away?
I think he acts on the internet the way he wishes he were in life.
 
APF said:
So lecturing us on the scientific benefits of actions that race car drivers and enthusiasts might be inclined to do will somehow paint McCain as an elitist?
Yes McCain's joking about the tire pressure thing because gas prices don't have an impact on him and he is ignoring how much gas consumption in the US could drop as a result of this and unlike McCain's baseless accusations Obama can back this up with testimony from experts in the field of automotives such as Nascar.

Nascar ain't elitist now, is it? :lol
 

tanod

when is my burrito
Counting down to Obama proposing a National "inflate your tires" day. Send campaign volunteers out to local gas stations with tire gauges and helkp people fill their tires and pass out pamphlets or something.

After this, Barack Obama could say he's done more to help ween ourselves of foreign oil than Washington has done in 30 years.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
siamesedreamer said:
Oil is already down to $120. It dropped almost $4 today with the rumor being that another commodity-based hedge fund collapsed.
so if this bubble is mostly just speculative trading right now, what's the point about any of this talk about demand and oil supplies?
 

TDG

Banned
polyh3dron said:
Yes McCain's joking about the tire pressure thing because gas prices don't have an impact on him and he is ignoring how much gas consumption in the US could drop as a result of this and unlike McCain's baseless accusations Obama can back this up with testimony from experts in the field of automotives such as Nascar.

Nascar ain't elitist now, is it? :lol
I've got to agree with APF here, I don't think that Obama lecturing people about properly inflating their tires is going to make a lot of people say, "Man, that Barack Obama is just like me. However, that John McCain is really elitist and out-of-touch about this tire inflation issue!"
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mandark said:
From your earlier posts, I got the impression that you supported this as good policy.


I think it's decent to good short term policy. But if done it should be said that this is only for the short term and not even closely supposed to be long term. Sorta like the Stimulus package money that we received.

scorcho said:
so if this bubble is mostly just speculative trading right now, what's the point about any of this talk about demand and oil supplies?

That's not the only reason why it dropped today. The tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico looks to be alot less harmful that many thought would be to the refineries so that helped lower the price.

Also the country just sucking economically is helping drop the price when you add to the fact that it's that time of the year where prices usually start falling anyway.
 
APF said:
So lecturing us on the scientific benefits of actions that race car drivers and enthusiasts might be inclined to do will somehow paint McCain as an elitist?

When I say "enthusiasts" I'm not just talking about people who soop up rice mobiles. I'm also talking about people in small towns who watch NASCAR, obsess over their trucks, and have been driving since the age of 12. I lived in South Carolina for 13 years and the majority of the guys who were natives (ie. didn't move in from the north east) were car/truck enthusiasts and knew how to do and regularly did basic maintenance with their vehicles. They didn't run crying to their dealership everytime they heard an odd knocking sound in their vehicle.

Mocking the benefits of good tire pressure that most "working men" know to be true could certainly come off as elitist. It seems to make fun of basic car maintenance. Maybe people like McCain, Rush, and Hannity who probably haven't driven a car in the past ten years and always lease the latest year model don't understand the car maintenance the average guy who owns a 7-20 year old vehicle has to deal with. Maybe that's why inflating tires seems strange and "scientific" to McCain, Rush, and APF. :)

It certainly doesn't "solve" the energy crises, but it's something that's effective where you'll see immediate benefits even if it's small. It's something the everyday guy can do. Belittling it doesn't do the McCain campaign any favors (if Obama pounced on it).
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
scorcho said:
so if this bubble is mostly just speculative trading right now, what's the point about any of this talk about demand and oil supplies?

the idea is that energy is a bubble right now. All the money in real estate went somewhere (well, whats left of it). The theory is investors are skiddish, and can be scared out of their holdings.

There is some evidence to this effect, real estate was helped tremendously b/c people cant do without homes = safe fall back after the .com burst. Everyone gets burned in real estate, fall back on another staple product with demand outstripping supply.

So, if you can do something to change the formula (open up drilling, SPR) you can scare the speculators out. If you buy into this theory, opening up the SPR would probably be quicker.

I like to think the whole theory is hogwash and that institutional money managers are smarter than that, but history shows us otherwise... and I know a few of them, they are all hell bent getting their betas up over 1.5 and outpacing the market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom