filling up demand i think

from the article

do you understand what that means? but again, you have zero proof to back up the preposterous claim that midterm elections are manipulated intentionally by exxon et al changing global oil prices to impact local gas prices because that's cheaper than taking a new incumbent to lunch to get him on the dole.

it also assumes each and every current incumbent is on the dole with exxon et al and doing their bidding, again preposterous.

some statistics from your article you conveniently left out:

You don't think Congress is rigged? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Enough congressional votes exist to have any particular issue go however Energy interests prefer. In each of those votes they can run out a dog and pony show to pretend some people are 'against big oil' and others are 'for big oil' but at the end of the day the votes always seem to come out favoring oil companies, pharma, large banks and other major corporate interests. It may come as a shock to you, but those same interests are also the largest contributors to political candidates... and they can make concessions or affect prices within their sectors to suit those same political interests.

Yes, I know the fact that it keeps happening over and over and over again for decades can be answered by "correlation does not equal causation" but at a certain point if it smells terrible every single time you fart, it's probably a good idea not to fart with your head under the blankets even if you don't know the exact chemical composition of your flatulence to prove cause and effect scientifically. :2 cents:

HUH? I don't think congress is rigged? I don't even know what that means in this context, congress rigged? like a card game? what?

global oil prices are analogous to farting under the covers?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I see now where your level of understanding is in this.

fall/winter they go low.... spring/summer they go high. Every year like clockwork.

So....
1 - Multibillion dollar oil companies and OPEC have no vested interest in who might win elections in the United States?

2 - These same entities that spend billions funding political campaigns wouldn't also be willing to engage in artificially inflating or deflating prices to suit their political interests?

3 - Prices falling 7% more in an election year than in a non-election year is pure coincidence?

4 - Gas prices dropped by 55 cents (about the largest drop in the country) in Ohio during the run up to the elections this year because Lebron discovered new reserves in the parking lot after a Cavs game?

Have luck.

a study by Yale economist Ray Fair shows that dating back to 1948, there is little correlation between election results and gas prices.

Take 1992. Gas prices were at their lowest levels in decades. The economy was pulling out of a recession. And the president had just won a war in convincing fashion. What happened next? Voters gave President George H.W. Bush the boot.


Fast forward to 2004. The economy was again pulling out of a recession ? but gas prices were at their highest levels in decades. What happened next? President George W. Bush was re-elected.


on to 2012, gas prices climbed dramatically in the months before Obama was elected.

The United States is now the world's largest oil producer.... We are relying less and less on other countries for our oil needs. One of the biggest markets for oil is buying less oil from foreign governments, leaving the rest to scramble for what is left over. And they are in a price war.

I never understood why the price of oil is controlled by OPEC.

Yup, large corporations only target national candidates. No reason to sink money into particular races or to affect prices differently in different regions. That's why Ohio prices fell exactly the same amount as prices in every other State.

People tend not to vote based on their own economic situation. A lot of the time people totally ignore whether they are doing better or worse financially and politicians hardly even mention those sorts of things during campaign ads or stump speeches. In fact, how well people are doing financially is so unimportant, it's likely why most political campaigns focus on the favorite color of each candidate instead.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

it's truly beyond silly to me to think that exxon et al would lose billions of dollars in revenues to keep incumbents in office, regardless of who those incumbents are.

I mean really!

Lose billions of dollars? hahahahah

Exxon never loses billions of dollars. If they reduce the price, they don't lose any money at all. They defer revenue, sure... and how much is favorable regulation and a weak oversight worth compared to the time value of money on that deferred revenue?

Maybe something to do with oil sands, cost of living, and social security. More likely it is a false flag and gasoline prices are crisis actors.

the usa is producing more crude than Saudi Arabia. The first time since the seventies. Thats why. well at least 90% why.
ds

you don't realize that spending money is a cost? and a cost directly impacts bottom line profits? You think that oil co's would rather manipulate global oil than take a politician to lunch? come on.

again, your claim that each and every incumbent in office is so much more valuable than a new incumbent that oil companies (both domestic and foreign) collude to manipulate global oil prices so as to alter the price of gas (which you said earlier isn't tied to oil prices) which in turn maintains the status quo of politicians in office is preposterous.

You're welcome!

Opec is supposed to work like a cartel
the policy of saudi arabia its to reduce is production to keep the price at a given level, but i don't think that opec is still powerful nowadays

and USA wants to piss russia off

Your answer is simply two words: SHALE OIL

More info