Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

Don't you remember during one of the Republican National "Debates" that both McCain and Romney were asked, "What qualifies you to run the US economy?" And neither man realized it was a trick question. They responded "I'm qualified to run the US economy because...." Neither man realized the limitations of the Presidency. Does Obama? Yeah, sure.

Reply
Report this post

Lets look at what has happened over the years Oil production has declined to just over 2,000,000,000 barrels during the 2000's from the high production years of the 1960's - 1970's of high 3,000,000,000 and 4,000,000,000. Following the oil crisis of the 1970's and the rise in prices the USA EXPORTED 1979 85,707,000 1980 104,935,000 Even with declines in production - the US exported over 10,006,000 BARRELS IN 2007. LEASES ON EXISTING SITES ARE NOT BEING USED. SUBSIDIES ARE STILL GOING OUT TO THE OIL COMPANIES. the whole of the oil problem is the USA dependence on oil. Subisidies should be going to alternative fuels. Ethenol is not a viable alternative, it produces far to little for the total land space it uses and abuses. Hydrogen is proving to be far to expensive to produce, or this is another speculation game? POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS? IF AND WHEN smaller, longer storage, light weight, batteries ; and EFFICIENT solar films painted on cars and houses become available we are stuck in a WIN / LOSE senario. COME ON folks get the young brains turning - send out competitions for the youth to come up with viable solutions that does not degredate the land, air, and seas. USING the masses of waste accumulating in land fills, the ocean, and over/underground storage. Recycle nuclear waste in some way. Someone out there will come up with a solution - given the incentives to do so.

Reply
Report this post

Question: What of the talk that speculators are responsible for about half of the current price spike due to their buying oil contracts, but not selling them as they usually do?

Reply
Report this post

As little as Senator McCain knows about foreign policy, it is scary that he admits to knowing even less about economics. I fear Mr. Hardesty missed the entire point of Mr. Stossel's post - speculators do not drive prices, at least not very far. If the run up in oil were merely due to speculation, there would be an increase in inventory because they would be buying oil but not using it. Inventory is DOWN, not up. There are many factors pushing oil higher, not the least of which is 'speculation' on whether or not there will be an attack on Iran (which would further diminish supply). But the biggest factor is spelled Federal Reserve. The price of oil in Euros is not rising nearly as fast as it is in $. And much less (or not at all) in terms of gold, the real money.

Reply
Report this post

I often agree with John but not here. The price of oil was 50. a barrel eighteen months ago. There has been no increase in demand to justify 135. a barrel now. This speculation has injured all sectors of the economy and has no done no one except a few speculators any good. There may be other factors of government intervention or business-government collusion that has caused or exacerbated this. But just to mindlessly praise everything the market does makes no sense. There is a great deal of panic and irrationality in the stock market on its best days. In fact US driving is sharply down from a year ago and started even before the current speculation. China is still a smalltime player here compared to the USA. In sum this is a huge rip-off by the oil companies to the detriment of both business and consumers.