Anybody want to talk about the US economy? Well, I do!

Bluesman · 08-06-2005, 12:05 PM

Herewith a great thumping of the New York Times and its absolute refusal to give any credit to this administration for what is obviously an excellent and well-managed economic policy that has led to terrific performance.

While I and most conservatives believe that the economy that is managed LESS performs BEST, we also believe that there are certain precepts that, if adhered to, will tend to increase wealth (such as low marginal rates and incentives on entrepreneurial risk-taking). These are things that the other side finds anathema, and consequently one can plausibly claim that NOT having a Five-Year Plan or a centrally-controlled economy and all the other CRAP that this administration's opponents favor is far better than some elaborate government intervention into what is properly private sector matters.

Well, here's more proof, if one needed it, coming on top of decades of empirical data on economic performance.

Quote:

Job Creation A Bummer For The Gray Lady
CQ frequently criticizes the New York Times, especially its editorial board, for its obvious and unacknowledged biases in its coverage (and non-coverage) and its analysis. We should consider how depressing it must be for those editorial-board members, whose staunch leftist politics have put it outside of the mainstream, to see the policies of their opponents achieve such success.

George Bush has had an unbroken string of growth since putting his economic plan into place in 2002 and 2003, which has now resulted in a significant and unexpected (at the NYT, anyway) rise in tax revenues and a major drop in the federal deficit. Now the new job-creation numbers show that new work has picked up across the board. All of this happy news for Americans just seems to bring out the inner pessimist at the Paper of Record, however:

Still, it's not robust. If jobs were being created today at the same pace as in other economic recoveries since World War II, the monthly average would be about 250,000. ...
The rates ticked up slightly for most groups in July, including for African-American men and high school dropouts. That's encouraging because it's generally assumed that if the least-advantaged workers can find jobs, higher-skilled workers will do even better. Nevertheless, employment rates are still well below their most recent peak, in 2000.

Because the demand for workers has been subpar for some four years now, wages have suffered. Average hourly wages rose a surprising 0.4 percent in July, the strongest monthly surge in a year. But they're up only 2.7 percent over the past year, hardly keeping up with inflation. Asked about that yesterday, Secretary Chao replied that overall compensation - which includes employer-provided health care and other benefits - was rising faster than the cost of living. That's correct, but somewhat disingenuous. The fact that workers' raises are, in effect, being diverted to cover the exploding cost of benefits is hardly a positive development.

It's difficult to know where to begin with this nonsense. The overall compensation shows why wages don't rise as fast -- because the employers provide more services to their workers. Twenty years ago, health insurance didn't come as an expectation. Now, most employers not only offer that as a given, but also provide dental, vision, and in some cases legal insurance. Many offer mental-health services for employees and their families. If the cost of these health-care premiums concerns the Times, perhaps they would care to support capping malpractice awards and legal fees in order to help keep the cost of providing these services down.

The Times displays this editorial pessimism in the face of its own news report in the same edition, which paints a much different picture of the economy and the position of workers:

Indeed, most recent statistics point to an accelerating economy after a modest dip in output growth to 3.4 percent in the second quarter, from 3.8 percent in the first three months of the year. ...
The 207,000 jobs added in July indicated the fastest hiring pace since April. Coming on top of revisions to previous estimates of employment gains in May and June that added another 42,000 jobs, average job growth this year was bumped up to 191,000 a month, sufficient to absorb the expansion of the labor force and reduce the slack in the job market.

Job growth ranged widely in July. The retail sector added 50,000 positions in July. Hotels and restaurants added 30,000 jobs. Employment in health care rose by 29,000. In an unexpected sign of increased job market stability, employment in temporary help agencies declined, indicating that employers might be relying less on temporary employees and hiring more workers full time. ...

Average hourly wages of production and nonmanagement workers rose nearly 0.4 percent, the fastest rate since July of last year. And the index of the aggregate amount of hours worked in the economy increased by about 2 percent.

In a particularly encouraging sign, the share of the total population that is working inched up 0.1 percent, to 62.8 percent, the highest percentage since October 2002. Gains filtered through to groups that have had a more difficult time in the labor market over the last few years. Unemployment among blacks declined 0.8 percent, to 9.5 percent, and the Hispanic unemployment rate dipped to 5.5 percent, from 5.8 percent in June.

So we have a real growth in income that has accelerated faster than any time since last July. Unemployment dropped for minority workers across the board, and Hispanic unemployment now almost equates to overall unemployment. Jobs have transitioned from temporary workers to permanent employment. Total employment has hit the highest percentage of the population in three years.

I can see why that depresses Pinch's crew.

The editorial saves its best for last. In a tortured explanation of its depression, the Times lays out the doomsday scenario haunting its nightmares:

As the housing market cooled, high oil prices would probably impose an ever greater toll on hiring and spending. Thus far, the economic drag of higher energy costs has been somewhat offset by the economic boost from appreciating real estate values. But if oil prices stayed high or went higher while real estate prices leveled off or dropped, employers and workers, and the consumers on whom they depend, would all feel the squeeze.
If high oil prices go higher, it will increase the economic model for new exploration, resulting in more oil resources and a stabilization of oil prices. In fact, we're approaching that point now. And in any economy, regardless of policies, when costs get out of hand and real assets undergo significant degredation, it won't be pleasant for workers, shareholders, owners, or anyone else. This isn't economic analysis; it's mindless scaremongering.

The Times just can't celebate good news, not as long as Republicans remain in charge. That is what has the Gray Lady crying the blues.

This administration is philosophically CORRECT on economic policy, and the country will benefit for decades to come from this President's conservative Reaganesque economic direction.

Bluesman · 08-06-2005, 12:07 PM

Forgot to give my attribution:

Captain's Quarters blog.

Check 'em out.

Blademaster · 08-06-2005, 12:09 PM

Come and talk to me after the real estate market crashes.

You will be singing a different tune.

Bluesman · 08-06-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Come and talk to me after the real estate market crashes.

You will be singing a different tune.

When did anyone ever claim the business cycle had been repealed? What I'm saying is that this economy is BOOMIN', but the dam' New York Times affects not to notice.

So, tell me, Master of Blades: is this economy going great, or is it not?

Leader · 08-06-2005, 14:42 PM

"Come and talk to me after the real estate market crashes."

Another oracle of doom.

highsea · 08-06-2005, 15:21 PM

The one area I disagreee with the administration, is on oil policy. Dubya has overseen a doubling of world oil prices, and he could have acted to check this.

In 1991, Bush Sr. announced a "test sale" of something like 10 million bbl. from the SPR at the oubreak of hostilities of GW1. The effect was calming on the oil markets, and sent the message to producers that the US would act if oil prices got out of control. As a result, prices remained stable, even when Kuwait's oil fields were burning.

Dubya could have done the same thing, but instead has done nothing. Granted, the donks didn't help by blocking his energy policy for the last 5 years (effectively killing domestic exploration), but that is what adversary parties do.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this- using the SPR as market moderator, but the high cost of oil is the #1 drag on the economy, not to mention the billions we have shelled out in airline subsidies due to high fuel costs. Also since we are still filling the SPR, any selloff would probably have been offset by the lower prices.

As it stands, we are sitting at $62+/bbl, with virtually no chance of ever seeing $40 again. I believe this could have been prevented with some nominal symbolic selloffs from the SPR, just as we did in '91.

Bluesman · 08-06-2005, 18:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The one area I disagreee with the administration, is on oil policy. Dubya has overseen a doubling of world oil prices, and he could have acted to check this.

In 1991, Bush Sr. announced a "test sale" of something like 10 million bbl. from the SPR at the oubreak of hostilities of GW1. The effect was calming on the oil markets, and sent the message to producers that the US would act if oil prices got out of control. As a result, prices remained stable, even when Kuwait's oil fields were burning.

Dubya could have done the same thing, but instead has done nothing. Granted, the donks didn't help by blocking his energy policy for the last 5 years (effectively killing domestic exploration), but that is what adversary parties do.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this- using the SPR as market moderator, but the high cost of oil is the #1 drag on the economy, not to mention the billions we have shelled out in airline subsidies due to high fuel costs. Also since we are still filling the SPR, any selloff would probably have been offset by the lower prices.

As it stands, we are sitting at $62+/bbl, with virtually no chance of ever seeing $40 again. I believe this could have been prevented with some nominal symbolic selloffs from the SPR, just as we did in '91.

Well, I hear ya talkin re: energy policy overall - I would've liked to see more done here, too. But I do NOT agree that the way to go about it is by fiddling with supply and demand to get to a 'correct' price of anything.

If oil remains at $60+/bbl, then that's a spur for further exploration, and that's WAY better in the long run than getting some kind of manipulated but unsustainable price trend. Furthermore, the real spur for alternative energy is the stark realization that we may be looking at a tight world market, where every single bbl is being chased by technology-poor/cash-rich countries (PRC comes instantly yo mind). Price will continue to climb far past the point that we can affect, and then, if we do not have alternative supplies, we're going to see some real scary problems: strategic AND economic.

So, I think the Prez is right to leave price to market forces, leave the STRATEGIC Petroleum Reserves in reserve, and now he needs to floor the pedal on alternatives and exploration, conservation and technology.

**Shek** · 08-06-2005, 18:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

The one area I disagreee with the administration, is on oil policy. Dubya has overseen a doubling of world oil prices, and he could have acted to check this.

In 1991, Bush Sr. announced a "test sale" of something like 10 million bbl. from the SPR at the oubreak of hostilities of GW1. The effect was calming on the oil markets, and sent the message to producers that the US would act if oil prices got out of control. As a result, prices remained stable, even when Kuwait's oil fields were burning.

Dubya could have done the same thing, but instead has done nothing. Granted, the donks didn't help by blocking his energy policy for the last 5 years (effectively killing domestic exploration), but that is what adversary parties do.

I know a lot of people will disagree with this- using the SPR as market moderator, but the high cost of oil is the #1 drag on the economy, not to mention the billions we have shelled out in airline subsidies due to high fuel costs. Also since we are still filling the SPR, any selloff would probably have been offset by the lower prices.

As it stands, we are sitting at $62+/bbl, with virtually no chance of ever seeing $40 again. I believe this could have been prevented with some nominal symbolic selloffs from the SPR, just as we did in '91.

Highsea,
The world oil market has changed in the past decade now. You have much more demand thanks to China and its growth.

highsea · 08-06-2005, 20:05 PM

I knew I would be popular for saying this...

The current price is due more to market fears than reality wrt supply/demand. In March 03, the price was $35/bbl, and that was an $8 jump in only 2 months, due to the strike in Venezuela and fears of the US going to war in Iraq. OPEC's target price was $28.

A correction-Bush Sr. only released 4 million barrels in 1991. The effect on the market was a $10 drop overnite. The 4 million barrels made no impact on supply- it stabliized the market because it sent a message that the US would act if things got out of hand. It took away the fear.

In 2003, when the price hit $38, the dems started calling for a release from the SPR. I was against it at the time, but last year when it hit $48, I changed my tune.

Yes, demand has grown in the last decade, but the supply has kept up, and is keeping up now. There is no shortage, there is a fear of a shortage. Increased demand just can't account for the doubling in price in the last 2 1/2 years.

Look what has been happening with the market- a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico- the price jumps a dollar. King Fahd dies- the price jumps a dollar. A pipeline in Iraq is targeted by terrorists- the price jumps two dollars. The standoff in Najaf last year caused a 3 dollar jump. This from a country that was only exporting 500,000 barrels a day! None of these things actually affects supply- it is the fear in the market future that is causing the instability.

The SPR is a strategic reserve, I undersand that. But it is also 700 million barrels of oil, and it could have been used to stabilize the market before things got out of control. I think now it's too late.

The US uses 20 million barrels a day. The difference between $40 oil and $60 dollar oil is $150 Billion a year. That would pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all by itself. Think what the economic numbers would be like if we weren't spending an additional $150 Billion a year right now.

I am not advocating a drawdown of the SPR, but a couple minor symbolic releases, strategically timed, would have prevented the runaway oil prices.

I don't buy the argument about artificially controlling prices. They are already artificially controlled. That's like saying DeBeers doesn't control the price of diamonds.

Like I said, it's to late now. Oil will never go back to 2003 prices. I doubt if it will ever drop below $50 again. It's a huge windfall for producers, and there is just no incentive for them to let it go back down. I think it is the biggest economic f*ckup of the Bush administration.

JMHO

bonehead · 08-07-2005, 12:58 PM

I somewhat agree with you Highsea. The price of oil could have been slowed in its upward spiral. The price was bound to go up, but a near doubling in a few years proves there is more than simple "supply and demand" going on here. The bottom line is that when you have someone tied to the oil industry in offfice, he is going to look out for his oil baron buddies. I don't hear the excecutives at Texaco whining about the cost of oil. They just pass on the increases, and a little extra, to the consumers while the executives laugh all the way to the bank. We need to put more of our resources into exploring alternative energy now.

mtnbiker · 08-07-2005, 15:37 PM

Bluesman,

This is clearly more right wing propaganda from this Administration. I read the NYT, the Washington Times and the Los Angeles Times daily and have never seen any of this information.

If any of this was acutally true I'm sure one of these great bastions of the news media would have mentioned it by now.

Confed999 · 08-07-2005, 15:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnbiker

Bluesman,

This is clearly more right wing propaganda from this Administration. I read the NYT, the Washington Times and the Los Angeles Times daily and have never seen any of this information.

If any of this was acutally true I'm sure one of these great bastions of the news media would have mentioned it by now.

Cute...

Bluesman · 08-07-2005, 19:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

The price was bound to go up, but a near doubling in a few years proves there is more than simple "supply and demand" going on here.

It doesn't 'prove' any such thing. You SUSPECT there's something more going on, but that's a different thing from PROOF, and here's what I suspect: it's ALL about supply and demand., and continuing on with your post...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

The bottom line is that when you have someone tied to the oil industry in offfice, he is going to look out for his oil baron buddies.

The bottom line is, you're slinging mud and slandering the president without the slightest bit of fact to back up your ridiculous assertion. HOW is he helping his oil baron buddies, and who might they be? WHY would he do so, when he's being scourged everyday by know-nothings like yourself that have no understanding of how markets work, how a politician calculates risk/benefit or how corporations assert their interests to the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonehead

I don't hear the excecutives at Texaco whining about the cost of oil. They just pass on the increases, and a little extra, to the consumers while the executives laugh all the way to the bank. We need to put more of our resources into exploring alternative energy now.

Of COURSE you don't hear Texaco execs whining about the cost of oil; that's not up to them. But increasing exploration/production IS up to them. Thanks to the Democrats, that avenue is becoming more difficult and less profitable to pursue, and THAT is exactly why we're in the place we're in now, and NOT because this president is favoring any greedy oil barons.

But I'll give you this much: you've accurately described how a corporation works when faced with increased costs (pass on the increase to the consumer), though you've absolutely failed to grasp why that must be so, and for this reason I am assuming you've never run a business yourself.

As for putting more of 'our' resources into exploring alternative energy sources, unless the collective noun you've used means that you're an investor of your own money in risky ventures that won't make a profit for years (if ever), I assume you mean public funds. And whatever progress has been made along those lines you may thank this president for, and I'd like to remind you we could have had an energy bill two years ago, but for the Democrats' opposition, and a better energy bill now, but for the very same reason.

Your dogmatic distrust of this president and the oil industry has made you see demons that aren't there, and prevented you from identifying the enemies of what you claim to want.

The Democrats are counting on people like you - ill-informed, reflexively anti-business, and hopelessly, pathologically unable to grasp that the only reason you are able to enjoy the lifestyle that you lead is because this country is founded on a more-or-less capitalist model.

Bluesman · 08-07-2005, 19:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtnbiker

Bluesman,

This is clearly more right wing propaganda from this Administration. I read the NYT, the Washington Times and the Los Angeles Times daily and have never seen any of this information.

If any of this was acutally true I'm sure one of these great bastions of the news media would have mentioned it by now.

Yeah, this mtnbiker dude thinks he's sooooo clever, with his sarcasm and his reading of newspapers, an' all. But we here on the AmeriMegaCorp Board of Evil Directors will show HIM that no levity is allowed in our profitable police state of

Okay, forget it. I WAS having some fun making sport of the lefty*, but he's like a bit of string to a cat: if it stops moving, I lose interest.

Not YOU, mtnbiker; I know you were just bein' all ironical, an' ever'thang.

bonehead · 08-07-2005, 21:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

It doesn't 'prove' any such thing. You SUSPECT there's something more going on, but that's a different thing from PROOF, and here's what I suspect: it's ALL about supply and demand., and continuing on with your post...

The bottom line is, you're slinging mud and slandering the president without the slightest bit of fact to back up your ridiculous assertion. HOW is he helping his oil baron buddies, and who might they be? WHY would he do so, when he's being scourged everyday by know-nothings like yourself that have no understanding of how markets work, how a politician calculates risk/benefit or how corporations assert their interests to the government.

Of COURSE you don't hear Texaco execs whining about the cost of oil; that's not up to them. But increasing exploration/production IS up to them. Thanks to the Democrats, that avenue is becoming more difficult and less profitable to pursue, and THAT is exactly why we're in the place we're in now, and NOT because this president is favoring any greedy oil barons.

But I'll give you this much: you've accurately described how a corporation works when faced with increased costs (pass on the increase to the consumer), though you've absolutely failed to grasp why that must be so, and for this reason I am assuming you've never run a business yourself.

As for putting more of 'our' resources into exploring alternative energy sources, unless the collective noun you've used means that you're an investor of your own money in risky ventures that won't make a profit for years (if ever), I assume you mean public funds. And whatever progress has been made along those lines you may thank this president for, and I'd like to remind you we could have had an energy bill two years ago, but for the Democrats' opposition, and a better energy bill now, but for the very same reason.

Your dogmatic distrust of this president and the oil industry has made you see demons that aren't there, and prevented you from identifying the enemies of what you claim to want.

The Democrats are counting on people like you - ill-informed, reflexively anti-business, and hopelessly, pathologically unable to grasp that the only reason you are able to enjoy the lifestyle that you lead is because this country is founded on a more-or-less capitalist model.

Oil companies are raking in record profits for the last three years in a row and are getting tax breaks so they can keep more of their profits. This is due to the current administrations policies. You may not be able to (or want to) see the writing on the wall, but I know when I am getting fleeced. Why should Bush do so? You know as well as anyone. The old trickle down theory. Give to the rich so the rich can generously make jobs for the poor. Secondly, It is human nature to want to see your friends and collegues do well, and assist them if need be. Bluesman. Our opinoins differ, but you do not have a clue as to what I know, (or anyone else knows) on certain subjects. You can name call all you want, but I doubt you are impressing anyone, and I know you are not intimidating me.

You conceded something to me so I will return the favor. Yes I do have a pessimistic view of big businness. I see the corruption from absolute power and greed and I think it should be checked as I see that there are some things that are more important money. I do grasp the importance of (more or less) capitalistic model, and I favor it. However, I do not approve of the stricly capitalistic model, nor do I want the communism model.

Maybe your unabashed love for Bush has blinded you from his shortcomings. Bush is not a savior. He is a politician.

If you think the democrats are counting on me, you have another thing coming. I had to vote for the LESSER of the two evils in the last two elections, (EEK.GASP) and that was Bush. I cared enough to vote and as an American citizen, I have a right to criticize the leader of my country, whomever it may be.

08-06-2005, 14:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
Leader Ubi dubium ibi libertas *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 09-04-03 Location: Boston, MA, USPRA Posts: 5,124	"Come and talk to me after the real estate market crashes." Another oracle of doom. __________________ "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have." "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" NEVER FORGET

08-06-2005, 15:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	The one area I disagreee with the administration, is on oil policy. Dubya has overseen a doubling of world oil prices, and he could have acted to check this. In 1991, Bush Sr. announced a "test sale" of something like 10 million bbl. from the SPR at the oubreak of hostilities of GW1. The effect was calming on the oil markets, and sent the message to producers that the US would act if oil prices got out of control. As a result, prices remained stable, even when Kuwait's oil fields were burning. Dubya could have done the same thing, but instead has done nothing. Granted, the donks didn't help by blocking his energy policy for the last 5 years (effectively killing domestic exploration), but that is what adversary parties do. I know a lot of people will disagree with this- using the SPR as market moderator, but the high cost of oil is the #1 drag on the economy, not to mention the billions we have shelled out in airline subsidies due to high fuel costs. Also since we are still filling the SPR, any selloff would probably have been offset by the lower prices. As it stands, we are sitting at $62+/bbl, with virtually no chance of ever seeing $40 again. I believe this could have been prevented with some nominal symbolic selloffs from the SPR, just as we did in '91. __________________ My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Economic Survey 2005-06: overview of the economy Part I	Neo	Political Discussions	3	10-31-2007 09:19 AM
Bliar in the Dock?	Ray	Political Discussions	26	01-16-2007 18:01 PM
Your Thoughts on David Icke?	joey2	World Affairs Board Pub	12	12-29-2006 07:55 AM
F-16 FALCON vs. MIG-29 FULCRUM	Tronic	Military Aviation	182	08-10-2005 21:30 PM
How China Will Change Your Business	oneman28	Political Discussions	6	04-04-2005 12:21 PM

08-06-2005, 12:07 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,387 Country:	Forgot to give my attribution: Captain's Quarters blog. Check 'em out.

08-06-2005, 12:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,050	Come and talk to me after the real estate market crashes. You will be singing a different tune.

08-06-2005, 20:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 3,478	I knew I would be popular for saying this... The current price is due more to market fears than reality wrt supply/demand. In March 03, the price was $35/bbl, and that was an $8 jump in only 2 months, due to the strike in Venezuela and fears of the US going to war in Iraq. OPEC's target price was $28. A correction-Bush Sr. only released 4 million barrels in 1991. The effect on the market was a $10 drop overnite. The 4 million barrels made no impact on supply- it stabliized the market because it sent a message that the US would act if things got out of hand. It took away the fear. In 2003, when the price hit $38, the dems started calling for a release from the SPR. I was against it at the time, but last year when it hit $48, I changed my tune. Yes, demand has grown in the last decade, but the supply has kept up, and is keeping up now. There is no shortage, there is a fear of a shortage. Increased demand just can't account for the doubling in price in the last 2 1/2 years. Look what has been happening with the market- a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico- the price jumps a dollar. King Fahd dies- the price jumps a dollar. A pipeline in Iraq is targeted by terrorists- the price jumps two dollars. The standoff in Najaf last year caused a 3 dollar jump. This from a country that was only exporting 500,000 barrels a day! None of these things actually affects supply- it is the fear in the market future that is causing the instability. The SPR is a strategic reserve, I undersand that. But it is also 700 million barrels of oil, and it could have been used to stabilize the market before things got out of control. I think now it's too late. The US uses 20 million barrels a day. The difference between $40 oil and $60 dollar oil is $150 Billion a year. That would pay for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all by itself. Think what the economic numbers would be like if we weren't spending an additional $150 Billion a year right now. I am not advocating a drawdown of the SPR, but a couple minor symbolic releases, strategically timed, would have prevented the runaway oil prices. I don't buy the argument about artificially controlling prices. They are already artificially controlled. That's like saying DeBeers doesn't control the price of diamonds. Like I said, it's to late now. Oil will never go back to 2003 prices. I doubt if it will ever drop below $50 again. It's a huge windfall for producers, and there is just no incentive for them to let it go back down. I think it is the biggest economic f*ckup of the Bush administration. JMHO

08-07-2005, 12:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
bonehead *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-12-05 Posts: 1,913	I somewhat agree with you Highsea. The price of oil could have been slowed in its upward spiral. The price was bound to go up, but a near doubling in a few years proves there is more than simple "supply and demand" going on here. The bottom line is that when you have someone tied to the oil industry in offfice, he is going to look out for his oil baron buddies. I don't hear the excecutives at Texaco whining about the cost of oil. They just pass on the increases, and a little extra, to the consumers while the executives laugh all the way to the bank. We need to put more of our resources into exploring alternative energy now.

08-07-2005, 15:37 PM	#11 (permalink)
mtnbiker Patron Join Date: 02-16-04 Location: California Posts: 191	Bluesman, This is clearly more right wing propaganda from this Administration. I read the NYT, the Washington Times and the Los Angeles Times daily and have never seen any of this information. If any of this was acutally true I'm sure one of these great bastions of the news media would have mentioned it by now.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)