GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   The TRUTH About Oil And Gas Prices! (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1022403)

Bill8 05-13-2011 05:32 PM
"oil welfare" gets 27 million results.

papill0n 05-13-2011 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18136027)
I call "Shenanigans!"

You have failed in evry respect to support your insane claims with specific references, choosing instead to provide links to the same sort of excrement which you are spouting on this forum.

Doesn't count.

"technically, my rhetoric IS responsive, it is however not supported by demonstrations or examples."

In simple terms, you cannot in any manner support your absurd, misleading and quite possibly dangerous claims.

Got it.

Thank you for outing yourself as the fool and tool that you are.
lol listen to this guy :1orglaugh

Bill8 05-13-2011 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18136027)
Thank you for outing yourself as the fool and tool that you are.
I am always intrigued by valid rhetorical challenges to my presentation.

TheDoc 05-13-2011 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18135807)
But why do we base it on supply and demand? The more they charge us, the less the demand, and the more supply. Do they charge me more for a bottle of water in Phoenix where it's hotter because of more demand? I think not.

If demand grows, costs go up? Why? It costs less to produce more in bulk. If I buy ten million barrels the price is set at once price, but if I buy fifteen million barrels it should be cheaper, right?

Why is the price of oil going up? Because of Libya? They produce two percent of the world's oil, nearly all of which goes to Europe? Libya can stop producing oil in the morning and it shouldn't have any affect on the price of oil in the US...
Water is not in short supply in Phoenix.

Because they speculate.

When you have demand and no supply, you charge more.... a rare mustang sales more than a more common one, because it's rare.

World demand shifts costs, if one country stops buying or starts over buying, it hits everyone across the world.

Same with all things pulled from earth... China did buy a ton of rare earth metals and over night the price doubled. Higher demand, same supply = higher prices.

It's natural business, and add in speculation that increases/decreases based on what 'people' think, you get the big fluctuation we have.

SallyRand 05-13-2011 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 (Post 18136040)
"oil welfare" gets 27 million results.
So?

I asked for one valid, non-rhetorical citation.

Can't seem to get one.

"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)

I think maybe you have been watching and listening to this fat fuck far too much:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k2...hn19/moore.jpg

ThatOtherGuy - BANNED FOR LIFE 05-13-2011 07:35 PM
Fox news is a total spin though. Obama's Energy Policies have largely succeeded.

"To make matters worse, solar and wind cannot even provide reliable, expensive electricity, because they use inherently intermittent sources of power--sunshine and wind gusts. Whereas coal, natural gas, and nuclear can generate the massive, precise, and reliable flows of power a modern economy require, wind and solar cannot—which is why they are always used as auxiliary, not primary, sources of power on electric grids. Think about it: Would you want your parent’s hospital room powered by the wind?"

Because the sun is going to explode and the wind will stop? What sort of logic is this?

I got a small story about Solar Power.
My families house is 100% powered by Solar on the roof and an Omni that tracks the sun. They are off grid they pay no electricity. Zero none nada. If the sun were to just mysteriously stop shinning they would have enough electricty to run for 4 days.
Many people are mislead to believe that Solar is all based on Sunlight, and for the most part it is but the real deal is in the battery storage. The sun is not going away anytime soon.

If Wind Power is such a joke not so far from my house on the way to Sacramento there is an incredible field of Wind Power Mill's they run 24-7 and the little known secret is the Power company that runs them is often asked by PG&E to shut down because they generate to much power.

I know most people will fall for the lies and spoon fed information on the news thats how things are but just a little education on things can be a real eye opener. Alternative Energy is the real deal, special interest's donot want people putting Solar Panels on there homes it is an direct afront to interest groups and think tanks that want Americans paying alot in energy. The technology of Solar has increased incredibly as of late and it is mind blowing. If even 30% of homes across the USA were Solar the Power companies would shit bricks trying to cover up the loss in revenue. Some solar panels today resemble the normal looking tiles that are on roof's it takes a closer look to realise what they are and hardly an eye sore if one wanted to blend in with the neighborhood's rooves. California State has mandated all Public Building have Solar Power by some certain date I forget when. So Renewable energies are here to stay.

Fox news really caters to the lowest denominator of people so stories such as the above is no surprise.

TheDoc 05-13-2011 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18136732)
So?

I asked for one valid, non-rhetorical citation.

Can't seem to get one.

"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)

I think maybe you have been watching and listening to this fat fuck far too much:
Well they get a 3% cut written straight into the tax code. Then many states give oil companies major breaks on land/property, when they already denied others, which would have made the state more tax dollars on that land for the state vs. the fed.

Come on... they get a lot of benefits, tax breaks, subsidies all of which is oil welfare. Some may pay, others get major benefits.

Let's get off the oil welfare which is factual and back onto the real fake crap in this thread.... those fox articles you posted.

devilspost 05-13-2011 08:21 PM

charlie g 05-13-2011 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18135721)
I am an old scamming tranny.....blah blah blah
No one takes you seriously sally. You've been "outed".

http://www.shemalesandtrannys.com/Im...old-tranny.jpg

Rock Cock Jayhawk a c corp will set you free to scam and commit fraud. I am virginia wolf, I cause problems.......... dumbass:321GFY






.

moeloubani 05-13-2011 08:49 PM
lol sally rand you he she

tell us about how you play with your clit old man lol :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

what a fucking JOKE

Bill8 05-13-2011 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18136732)
So?
"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)
"crazy liberal" is actually an excellent example of the point I was making, because it is a commonly seen term in popular culture, and reflects, just as "oil welfare" does, popular use and understanding.

you just demonstrated the validity of my example & demonstration as support for my rhetorical point.

what's funny is you didn't realize that's what you were doing.

I don't follow Michael Moore personally, so I hadn't heard he's said anything about oil welfare. You got a cite?

let's see - a search for oil welfare in google news produces 1330 results -so, media sorted thru the google news filter, which chops out the smaller stuff and only shows a limited date range - finds the words oil and welfare close in a fair number of pages.

here's an example - the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act legislation proposed by some delaware congressman - http://www.wgmd.com/?p=23717&cpage=1

Quote:
Cong. Carney introduces Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act


Delaware Congressman John Carney has introduced the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. The measure would repeal billions in Big Oil subsidies and help reduce the federal deficit by nearly $13 billion. This would remove a tax deduction for the Big Five oil companies ? who continue to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies ? while crude and gas prices continue to rise. Carney says incurring additional debt to subsidize big oil companies which already have an incentive to produce oil is foolish and irresponsible.

will76 05-13-2011 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18134352)
OK, I'll do all the whining for you in order to get it over with!

"Lies!"

"Spin!"

"I don't beleive ANYTHING from FOXNEWS!"

"More Repug LIES!"

There.

Feel better?

Now, read it and weep as some of your most cherished half-witted "truths" get staked to anthills!

I challenge any of you to prove anything in this editorial to be incorrect, falsified or just plain wrong!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-gas-industry/

3 Myths About the Oil and Gas Industry

By Bob Beauprez

Published May 12, 2011 | FoxNews.com

As voters around the country wince at rising gas prices, panicked Democrats, in a rush to cover the failure of their all-or-nothing bet on the alternative energy industry have started singing a familiar tune ? blame the oil and gas industry. Instead of facing the reality of his owned failed policies, President Obama is calling for an end to the "tax giveaways" he claims amount to $4 billion in ?subsidies? to the energy industry.

This tactic isn?t surprising given the effect that rising gas prices have on the president?s approval ratings and his obsession with re-election. But, less-than-truthful innuendos and political spin hardly helps America's working families who are getting hammered at the pump.

If our leaders are going to have an honest discussion about energy, it's important to clear up a few rumors, misconceptions and outright falsehoods being perpetrated about the oil and gas industry. Let's begin with three of the more common ones:

1. The industry doesn?t receive any taxpayer funded subsides. None.
2. Rampant speculation and Wall Street tricks aren?t driving up gas prices.
3. The oil and gas industry is not dodging the taxes they owe and withholding ?their fair share.?

I'll say it again; contrary to popular opinion and the president's spin, the oil and gas industries do not receive any taxpayer funded subsidies. The tax code does allow them to claim certain tax credits and deductions to encourage continued investment in an industry that is heavily front-end loaded with capital expense.

These are the same kind of incentives available to Coca-Cola, General Electric, Ford, and Microsoft and other companies doing business in the U.S. Or, for that matter, like the deduction for mortgage interest payments enjoyed by homeowners. But, importantly these are tax credits, and markedly different from direct taxpayer cash subsidies like the 45 cent per gallon payment blenders get to put ethanol in fuel mixes.

When businesses invest in America, we all benefit. The oil and gas industry plows about $300 billion into domestic projects per year ? that's 75 times more than Obama's phantom "taxpayer giveaways" amount -- and employees over 9 million people. Those are real numbers; not Washington spin, and if government would allow and encourage even more domestic production there would be more jobs and more investment ? and more total taxes paid, too.

Another argument that often circulates when gas prices go up is that a phantom class of ?Wall Street speculators? is to blame for the increase of prices. In 2008 this school of thought was so persuasive that President Bush commissioned an exhaustive review, via the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, looking into the effect that speculators had on market prices. Their conclusion was surprising, according to The Wall Street Journal, ?The agency concluded that speculators?otherwise known as traders?were putting downward pressure on prices. The liquidity they provide helps to smooth volatility.?

Not satisfied with the 2008 study, President Obama recently resurrected this school of thought, even tapping Attorney General Eric Holder to police perceived illegal activity and price gouging. Yet within the presidents? own administration, the Federal Trade Commission found that the recent spike in oil prices is due primarily to normal market forces, including booming demand from developing economies in India and China and not because of any questionable behavior from Wall Street.

The third popular attack is that somehow oil and gas industry isn?t paying its fair share in taxes. Democratic Party mythology aside, the oil and gas industry pays a much heftier percentage of net income in taxes (41.1%) than the average of all other S&P Industrials (26.5%). Every single day, the industry is sending more than $85 million to the U.S. Treasury for taxes and royalty payments.

Yes, the energy companies are profitable, but their profit margins are right in line with manufacturing, aerospace, and the food industries, while computer, pharmaceutical, and the beverage companies have triple the net income margins of traditional energy.

I don't like subsidies and I don't like Congress or the IRS deciding what is good economic behavior and what is bad. But, I do understand that you get more of what gets incentivized, and less of what is penalized. And, there is a huge difference in "redistributing the wealth" through direct subsidy payments, and a tax credit that encourages investment in much needed production that creates jobs and taxable income.

If congress is serious about creating jobs and jump starting the economy, they should lower the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among the 34 OECD nations, rather than increase the tax burden on energy or any industry.

Capital is fungible, and energy production is the prototypical global industry. Plenty of nations around the world are providing a far more welcoming business environment for energy production than the U.S. already with a less onerous tax code and far less regulatory burden.

If increasing our domestic supply is really a national objective, then this might not be the best time to send exactly the opposite message to the people that provide the capital to drill the wells.

Bob Beauprez is a former member of Congress from Colorado with successful careers as a dairy farmer, community banker, and real estate development. He has published his first book, publishes a public policy website, A Line of Sight.com, and operates a buffalo breeding ranch in the Colorado mountains.

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q...endme1/gas.jpg

http://www.selebritiz.com/wp-content...he-fuck-up.jpg

http://www.phuckpolitics.com/wp-cont...he_fuck_up.jpg

http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2...pg?w=384&h=547

http://troll.me/images/thumbs-up-jes...he-fuck-up.jpg

Bill8 05-14-2011 03:44 PM
well, now I guess we get to see what giving the oil companies access to formerly preserved oil leases accomplishes.

for some long time I have been regarded the preserved oil as our last ditch military backup in the event of world war 3 - we shall see how much of that military reserve is extracted and sold in the world market. and what effect it has, what time scale it takes, and wether or not it benefits americans.

it was inevitable that every last possible site will be drilled. it seems a shame to do it now, when things will be so much worse in the future, and the oil worth so much more.

the cynicism and lack of principles of obama never ceases to repel me.

Bill8 05-14-2011 04:42 PM
people reading this thread will recall earlier posts about speculators adding so much to the price of oil - yet nobody seems to have any answers as to what to do about those evil ole speculators.

so what do you figure the republicans will allow to be done about those meanie speculators and their evil free market speculations?

browsing google news about oil today brings up this article that has some interesting factoids.

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzne...0-70-a-barrel/

Quote:
ExxonMobil CEO Says Oil Price Should Be $60 To $70 A Barrel
May. 14 2011 - 10:29 am | 3,720 views | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
By ROBERT LENZNER

Rex Tillerson, the boss of ExxonMobil admitted last week that the price of oil?based purely on supply and demand- should be in the $60 to $70 a barrel range. The reason it?s above $100 a barrel, Tillerson explained, is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock in current high prices, and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds.

That was just one of the stunning revelations made during the Senate hearing on tax subsidies to the oil industry? which featured the 6 most powerful CEOs? BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips and Exxon-Mobil? all sitting like ducks in a row giving t he stiff-arm to pressing unfriendly inquiries from a host of Democratic Senators.

The formal showdown between Big Oil and Big Politics was enormously revealing theater about just how selfish and narrow-minded cash-rich industry can be when called upon to do their patriotic duty in balancing the budget. Ouch!!!

Here are some other juicy disclosures from the hearing:

?The average cost of producing 1 barrel of oil was $11; the average price of the oil in the marketplace?$72? some 6.5 times the cost of getting tghe oil out of the ground.

?The profits for the big 6 oil companies was $36 billion in the year?s first quarter. A large part of the $36 billion was used to buyback shares or pay dividends to shareholders.

?These giant US companies have only 1.4% of global oil reserves; the national companies of OPEC have 68% of the reserves. Therefore, argue the CEOs best not to take away tax adanatages, ie what the Senators call ?subsidies.?

? If those nasty Senators take away the tax advantages, exploration for oil in the US will dry up? and move abroad where t he tax advantages are splendid. This is called waving t he red flag- and threatening to put the nation?s oil deficit in even more dollar-bashing trouble.

?If Obama doesn?t loosen restrictions on drilling in Alaska and offshore US? we will become even more horribly dependent on importing foreign oil.

?There is NO energy plan for the US? and warns Sen. Max Baucus of Montana- ?we will require the good faith on everyone?s part? which is going to be enormously difficult.? This is an understatement when one sees the way the oil executives and the Senators agree on almost nothing. No CEO would admit the tax advantages were subsidies.

?The deduction for intangible drilling expenses was given the oil industry in 1960 when a barrel was worth about $15-17. So, why do they need this favor when oil is $100 a barrel? Good bloody question , I thought. The oil execs looked horrified and warned that all exploration in the US would cease and desist.

SallyRand 05-14-2011 05:14 PM
And yet even though I have asked for specific citations which allude to or identify exclusive examples of "oil welfare", nothing like any sort of answer or ink to such things have been posted. Only search links which point primarily to discussions of the afrementioned elusive "welfare" matters.

Seem that the haters can only find references to complete bullshit and links to the same sort of tax eductions which are avaiable to other kinds of businesses.

Wonder why?

"Why?" is because there is no such thing as "oil welfare".

There is only the Tax Code.

If you don't like the Tax Code, write your Congress people and get it changed.

And convert your cars to pedal power.

I support "renewable" energy sources but am realistic enough to know that solar and wind will not replace fossil, hydroelectric or nuclear.

The Sun only shines in the daytime and storage on a large scale is virtually impossible. Battery banks of meaningful size would be incredibly expensive, not to mention the cost and environmental impact of inveters to make the stored power useful.

Much of the wind power equipment (Virtually all!) comes from offshore, which does little to reduce our dependence on offshore energy sources. Wind power stations also kill birds by the thousands and in some very new ways negatively affect the surrounding environment.Coal (Fossil) powered plants are the best go right now but fraught with problems. Clean Coal is not a myth but more work needs to be done. Ethanol production only raises food prices and is inefficient as Hell.

Instead of investing time, labor and effort in pipe-dream energy systems, I think we are much better off trying to cut down on useage, drive like sane people to get better fuel economy and work towards fusion power.

Conservation is the thing.

TRUE conservatives conserve, reuse and seek efficiency and safety in all matters related to the environment and energy production.

And don't drill in ANWR and stop sending money to Brazil to finance THEIR offshore drilling as has done H.Obama. The USA needs to start taking care of itself and start now. We should not ruin our environment in order to save it.

And before I forget............................................ ...................

What about all that "oil welfare" anyway?

http://i1209.photobucket.com/albums/...olf-pack11.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...hernewborn.jpg

http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/o...lls_Kansas.jpg

http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/q...nd/Image20.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b1.../swordfish.jpg

AND WE SHOULD STOP FIGHTING WARS OVER OIL!

THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF OIL WORTH ONE AMERICAN LIFE!

Bill8 05-14-2011 05:35 PM
you tend to rant instead of argue, and seem incapable of assessing other peoples arguments.

this is the failing of relying on emotionalism and rhetorical fallacies.

but the "true conservatism" is a good angle, and if you work out your supporting arguments and proposals related to it you might have something worth standing on.

of course, your fellow republicans will attack you for it. but, there's a price to be paid for actually thinking about solutions rather than team loyalty.

a shame your kind didn't start talking about "no war for oil" years ago.

Tempest 05-14-2011 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18138901)
Seem that the haters can only find references to complete bullshit and links to the same sort of tax eductions which are avaiable to other kinds of businesses.
Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, by Asset Type

Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures - 9.2%

As compared to things like:

Manufacturing Buildings - 32.2%
Commercial Buildings - 30.4%
Farm Tractors - 22.7%
Farm Structures - 20.8%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf

So yeah.. If I had the time I could find more info for ya.

SallyRand 05-14-2011 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 18138921)
Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, by Asset Type

Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures - 9.2%

As compared to things like:

Manufacturing Buildings - 32.2%
Commercial Buildings - 30.4%
Farm Tractors - 22.7%
Farm Structures - 20.8%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf

So yeah.. If I had the time I could find more info for ya.
Thanks for the .pdf from 2005!

And all of its many, many pages.

In no way do such rates constitute "oil welfare".

The term "oil welfare" implies that oil companies are simply being givenmoney without making any kind of return to the public, which is clearly not the case.

Now............................................... .................................................. .....

Let's raise tax rates for oil companies........................................

Increased tax rates are considered to be "costs".

"costs" are passed along to the end user, the ultimate consumer.

You.

How much are YOU will ing to pay? We already got fucking $4.00 per gallon gas (Well, not quite.) My fill up today was ONLY $3.82 per gallon and the oil companies make exactly the same amount at $3.82 as they do at $1.50 per gallon. About 9 FUCKING CENTS!)

Would you rather conserve, recycle and resuse or kill more Americans in OIL WARS?

And by the way, I have opposed oil wars forever.

AND............................................... .................................................. .

I AM A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT, so you all take that "Repug", etc., nonsense and shove it up your collective ass!

Tempest 05-14-2011 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SallyRand (Post 18138938)
blah blah blah
Although from 2005, it's still pretty accurate. And it's a government document. You wanted non bullshit info and links.. I provided it for ya.

You asked about tax deductions.. I'm sure that in the document, or found elsewhere, would be the deductions those companies get so that they pay the lowest tax rate for those items than any other industry.

No, they're not getting taxpayer money directly from the government, but it's still a subsidy that only applies to them. I love how that article talked about the Obama "spin" and yet did the same thing by slipping in the words "taxpayer funded" so they could write a nice little spin article against Obama while still being technically accurate. Just another way to misinform the less intelligent public.

Anyway.. Carry on with your rant etc...

By the way.. What drugs are you on?

Vendzilla 05-14-2011 06:37 PM
40 billion over 5 years, that's 8 billion a year in savings over this.

The oil companies would just recoup the money in the end with higher prices and the 2010 budget is 1.3 trillion in deficit.

Is this the only thing the government can do to work on the high price of oil?

Still paying over $4 a gallon for gas

Tempest 05-14-2011 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18138978)
Is this the only thing the government can do to work on the high price of oil?
I thought most people in the US didn't want the government messing with their capitalistic pseudo free market economy?

Vendzilla 05-14-2011 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest (Post 18138989)
I thought most people in the US didn't want the government messing with their capitalistic pseudo free market economy?
Changing the subject?

Bill8 05-17-2011 05:00 PM
I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill8 (Post 18135543)
personally I doubt our pro-multinational congress will touch oil welfare. they'll yak yak yak and do something symbolic maybe, but write in loopholes that takes any oversight and muscle out of the final bill.
and I was right:

from US news and World Report (selected out of 152 articles because US News used to be big in the buisiness sector):

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...le-republicans

Quote:
It's been "Big Oil" time on Capitol Hill recently. Last week, the House spent much of its floor time debating pro-drilling bills, and top industry executives were called before a Senate committee to make their case for high gas prices and their companies' high profits. Today, the Big Oil show continues, as Democrats in the Senate try to advance a bill that would undo a number of tax breaks for the five top-producing American oil companies. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on gas prices.]




The vote this evening on the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act appears to be purely a test vote. With Republicans and oil-state Democrats, like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu in opposition, it's not expected to get the 60 votes needed to proceed. Even if it did pass the Senate and go to the House, the Republican majority there would probably guarantee its death on arrival.

However, Democrats aren't missing an opportunity to use the vote to put Republicans up for election in 2012 in the hot seat. The revenue from the bill, which would eliminate a handful of corporate tax deductions for only the top five oil companies, would be used to reduce the deficit. So while adopting the now familiar cry of deficit hawks on the right, Democrats have turned the tables by framing a vote against this bill as a vote against deficit reduction. Not to mention, since opponents of this bill are essentially coming to the defense of majors in the oil industry, Democrats could the vote as a chance to tie vulnerable lawmakers to the publicly maligned industry.
I don't usually go so far back in the results to post in an older thread, but, I thought then that congress wouldn't dare act against the oil corps, and that especially the republicans would demonstrate their deficit and money saving talk was all a cynical game to exploit the teabaggers, and that they have no intention of cutting any of the benefits and subsidies corporations get.

and that's what they did.

so far, they haven't repealed the affordable care act either, and I predict they wont, because it funnels money to the health care and health insurance corporations.

or if they pretend to, they will do it in such a way that the loopholes benefit corporate profits and somehow funnel more taxpayer money to the corps.

marlboroack 05-17-2011 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix (Post 18134423)
What in the fuck is this? :1orglaugh

SallyRand 05-17-2011 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marlboroack (Post 18147050)
What in the fuck is this? :1orglaugh
Phoenix is nothng but a useful idiot; a tool for the socialists.

uno 05-18-2011 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18135854)
I have no idea how OPEC came into being. If I was forced to guess, I would say it had something to do with the close of WWII, in which oil played a huge part - Countries couldn't fight if they didn't have oil.

In 1973 they brought us to our knees with their gas embargo because of our support of Israel. I don't remember this, I was too young; But I know about it because of the history of the automotive industry and how cars changed drastically over night. They can do it again too.

What to do about it? Simple. Go to Mexico and Canada and tell them they need to leave OPEC or we won't buy any oil from them. I'm guessing Mexico and Canada would rather deal with us directly. Venezuela? They'll fold too. Why? Simple. If oil is $100 a barrel but they have to ship it to Europe it's going to cost them four times as much to get it there.
If we fuck OPEC they'll probably choose a new currency to trade in and then we are totally fucked.

2MuchMark 05-18-2011 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 18134416)
What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?
Opec doesn't control the world wide price of oil. Opec member countries produce 42% of the world's oil + 18% of the world's natural gas. Opec represents 58% of the crude oil traded around the world there they can have a strong influence on the market but not control it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:30 AM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123