Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump

H

Harry Hope

Guest
From Bloomberg, 11/1/07:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunTjVe_xS_s&refer=home

Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump

By Nesa Subrahmaniyan and Wai Meng Lee

Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) --

Oil traders are increasing bets that crude will reach $125 a barrel
this year because of record world demand and threats to supplies from
the Middle East and Nigeria.

Traders held 2,526 call options contracts, each granting the right to
buy 1,000 barrels of December oil at $125 in New York, as of Oct. 29.

Four months ago, only one contract was outstanding.

Bets on $100 oil are also surging:

options on December oil at that price totaled 49,744 contracts as of
Oct. 30, up from 30,055 on Jan. 2.

Crude oil for December delivery rose to a record $96.24 in New York
today, the highest since the futures began trading in 1983.

Prices have soared 19 percent the past month as inventories fell, the
dollar weakened and violence in Iraq raised concern exports may be
cut, while Iran threatened to curb supplies in its standoff over
nuclear research.

Oil at $100 ``is becoming a reality,'' said Anthony Nunan, deputy
general manager of risk management at Mitsubishi Corp., Japan's
biggest trading company, in Tokyo.

``It's not crazy anymore, it's a reasonable target.''

_________________________________________________

Harry
 
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:2gaki3521a2f0olcjekb0i10tvu88fvnou@4ax.com...
>
> From Bloomberg, 11/1/07:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunTjVe_xS_s&refer=home
>
> Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump
>
> By Nesa Subrahmaniyan and Wai Meng Lee
>
> Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) --
>
> Oil traders are increasing bets that crude will reach $125 a barrel
> this year because of record world demand and threats to supplies from
> the Middle East and Nigeria.
>
> Traders held 2,526 call options contracts, each granting the right to
> buy 1,000 barrels of December oil at $125 in New York, as of Oct. 29.
>
> Four months ago, only one contract was outstanding.
>
> Bets on $100 oil are also surging:
>
> options on December oil at that price totaled 49,744 contracts as of
> Oct. 30, up from 30,055 on Jan. 2.
>
> Crude oil for December delivery rose to a record $96.24 in New York
> today, the highest since the futures began trading in 1983.
>
> Prices have soared 19 percent the past month as inventories fell, the
> dollar weakened and violence in Iraq raised concern exports may be
> cut, while Iran threatened to curb supplies in its standoff over
> nuclear research.
>
> Oil at $100 ``is becoming a reality,'' said Anthony Nunan, deputy
> general manager of risk management at Mitsubishi Corp., Japan's
> biggest trading company, in Tokyo.
>
> ``It's not crazy anymore, it's a reasonable target.''
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Harry

People will start to freeze to death this winter. The right cheers record
oil profits.
 
Harry Hope wrote:

> From Bloomberg, 11/1/07:
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunTjVe_xS_s&refer=home
>
> Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump

It anyone doesn't see behind the smoke and mirrors yet, the oil barrel
increase is nothing more than speculation and war profiteering.

I'd support the rounding up of war profiteers in the US and have them
placed in re-education camps. It'd be decimating to Republican
leadership but a plague would be removed in the US.
 
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:05:25 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Salad wrote:
>>
>> Harry Hope wrote:
>>
>> > From Bloomberg, 11/1/07:
>> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunTjVe_xS_s&refer=home
>> >
>> > Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump
>>
>> It anyone doesn't see behind the smoke and mirrors yet, the oil barrel
>> increase is nothing more than speculation and war profiteering.
>>
>> I'd support the rounding up of war profiteers in the US and have them
>> placed in re-education camps. It'd be decimating to Republican
>> leadership but a plague would be removed in the US.
>>
>The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
>means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
>petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
>years.


The collapse of the dollar is doing its job too.
 
Salad wrote:
>
> Harry Hope wrote:
>
> > From Bloomberg, 11/1/07:
> > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aunTjVe_xS_s&refer=home
> >
> > Oil Traders Raise Bets on $125 Crude as Options Jump
>
> It anyone doesn't see behind the smoke and mirrors yet, the oil barrel
> increase is nothing more than speculation and war profiteering.
>
> I'd support the rounding up of war profiteers in the US and have them
> placed in re-education camps. It'd be decimating to Republican
> leadership but a plague would be removed in the US.
>
The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
years.


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
> means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
> petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
> years.

In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.

Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
(among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
the end of the world.

Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services. Instead they're
payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
while it lasted.
 
timeOday wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> > The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
> > means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
> > petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
> > years.
>
> In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
> with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.
>
The question really is, Why did you buy an eight passenger SUV? It isn't
like the cost of gasoline is ten bucks a gallon. We are talking about
three bucks.


> Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
> (among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
> the end of the world.
>
> Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services.
>
You don't think the US has buses?


> Instead they're
> payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
> us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
> propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
> But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
> while it lasted.
>
I suspect things will correct.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:45:34 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>timeOday wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
>> > means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
>> > petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
>> > years.
>>
>> In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
>> with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.
>>
>The question really is, Why did you buy an eight passenger SUV? It isn't
>like the cost of gasoline is ten bucks a gallon. We are talking about
>three bucks.

Yeah, and it's American money, so in terms of real money, it hardly
costs anything at all!
>
>
>> Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
>> (among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
>> the end of the world.
>>
>> Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services.
>>
>You don't think the US has buses?
>
>
>> Instead they're
>> payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
>> us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
>> propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
>> But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
>> while it lasted.
>>
>I suspect things will correct.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
become. I just can
 
3843 Dead wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:45:34 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >timeOday wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
> >> > means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
> >> > petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
> >> > years.
> >>
> >> In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
> >> with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.
> >>
> >The question really is, Why did you buy an eight passenger SUV? It isn't
> >like the cost of gasoline is ten bucks a gallon. We are talking about
> >three bucks.
>
> Yeah, and it's American money, so in terms of real money, it hardly
> costs anything at all!
>
Maybe you should consider Canada.



> >> Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
> >> (among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
> >> the end of the world.
> >>
> >> Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services.
> >>
> >You don't think the US has buses?
> >
> >
> >> Instead they're
> >> payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
> >> us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
> >> propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
> >> But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
> >> while it lasted.
> >>
> >I suspect things will correct.
> --
>
> What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
>
> An ex-Republican.
>
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
>
> "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has
> become. I just can
 
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:45:34 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>timeOday wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> > The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
>> > means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
>> > petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
>> > years.
>>
>> In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
>> with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.
>>
>The question really is, Why did you buy an eight passenger SUV? It isn't
>like the cost of gasoline is ten bucks a gallon. We are talking about
>three bucks.
>
>
>> Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
>> (among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
>> the end of the world.
>>
>> Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services.
>>
>You don't think the US has buses?
>
>
>> Instead they're
>> payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
>> us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
>> propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
>> But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
>> while it lasted.
>>
>I suspect things will correct.


Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
our seed-corn now. Manufacturing is pretty much gone
offshore. The government is so far in debt that every
family of four would have to pay $120,000 to acquit it.
They can't afford that. The interest on the debt per
family of four at 5% is $6,000. That money has to be
paid to the government every year just to keep from
falling further behind, before any money is available for
the military or infrastructure or schools. It's a hell of a
situation to be in. I'm not sure the USA will survive as
we knew it.
 
Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:45:34 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >timeOday wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >> > The market is simply doing its job. If oil is $125 a bbl, that just
> >> > means people will have an incentive to use less. Note that the price of
> >> > petrol won't be higher in the US than it already has been in Europe for
> >> > years.
> >>
> >> In Europe a lot of people can't afford to drive, so Americans struggling
> >> with rising gas prices should not find that analogy comforting.
> >>
> >The question really is, Why did you buy an eight passenger SUV? It isn't
> >like the cost of gasoline is ten bucks a gallon. We are talking about
> >three bucks.
> >
> >
> >> Of course, the high price of gas in Europe is largely taxes, which funds
> >> (among other things) public transport, so not being able to drive isn't
> >> the end of the world.
> >>
> >> Our high gas prices aren't providing any such services.
> >>
> >You don't think the US has buses?
> >
> >
> >> Instead they're
> >> payback for sponsoring the buildup of China (who can now compete with
> >> us for oil on the world market) and our national debt and insistence at
> >> propping up the stock market above all else (and thus weakening dollar).
> >> But, hey, living beyond our means on the backs of the Chinese was fun
> >> while it lasted.
> >>
> >I suspect things will correct.
>
> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
> our seed-corn now.
>
You are simply ridiculous.


> Manufacturing is pretty much gone
> offshore. The government is so far in debt that every
> family of four would have to pay $120,000 to acquit it.
> They can't afford that. The interest on the debt per
> family of four at 5% is $6,000. That money has to be
> paid to the government every year just to keep from
> falling further behind, before any money is available for
> the military or infrastructure or schools. It's a hell of a
> situation to be in. I'm not sure the USA will survive as
> we knew it.
>
If the US didn't spend so much money buying imported oil, it could have
a better balance of trade. Will you finally stop opposing nuclear power?



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:


<snip>


>> >I suspect things will correct.
>>
>> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
>> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
>> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
>> our seed-corn now.
>>
>You are simply ridiculous.


Yet another person with his head in the sand.
Just see what happens.


>> Manufacturing is pretty much gone
>> offshore. The government is so far in debt that every
>> family of four would have to pay $120,000 to acquit it.
>> They can't afford that. The interest on the debt per
>> family of four at 5% is $6,000. That money has to be
>> paid to the government every year just to keep from
>> falling further behind, before any money is available for
>> the military or infrastructure or schools. It's a hell of a
>> situation to be in. I'm not sure the USA will survive as
>> we knew it.
>>
>If the US didn't spend so much money buying imported oil, it could have
>a better balance of trade. Will you finally stop opposing nuclear power?


I don't oppose nuclear power, but not as close as
a reactor proposed just a bit north of here a while
back, which was justified on the grounds that there
would be less than a 2% chance of wiping out the
population of San Francisco. That might appeal to
some Texans, but not to us San Franciscans!

As to the collapsing dollar, think about Japanese
cars and TV sets, just to name a couple of examples.
A weakened dollar helps exports, and exports help
exporters and diminishing circles away from the
exporters. It hurts anybody directly who buys
anything made in whole or part outside the USA,
which has a heckuvalot more impact on most
people.
 
Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >I suspect things will correct.
> >>
> >> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
> >> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
> >> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
> >> our seed-corn now.
> >>
> >You are simply ridiculous.
>
> Yet another person with his head in the sand.
> Just see what happens.
>
Of course no matter how crazy your comments, it's me who's got my head
in the sand. Nutty conspiracy theories are all true, BTW. You know why I
know that, because someone said so.


> >> Manufacturing is pretty much gone
> >> offshore. The government is so far in debt that every
> >> family of four would have to pay $120,000 to acquit it.
> >> They can't afford that. The interest on the debt per
> >> family of four at 5% is $6,000. That money has to be
> >> paid to the government every year just to keep from
> >> falling further behind, before any money is available for
> >> the military or infrastructure or schools. It's a hell of a
> >> situation to be in. I'm not sure the USA will survive as
> >> we knew it.
> >>
> >If the US didn't spend so much money buying imported oil, it could have
> >a better balance of trade. Will you finally stop opposing nuclear power?
>
> I don't oppose nuclear power,
>
It's interesting how we are getting Liberals saying that more and more.


> but not as close as
> a reactor proposed just a bit north of here a while
> back, which was justified on the grounds that there
> would be less than a 2% chance of wiping out the
> population of San Francisco. That might appeal to
> some Texans, but not to us San Franciscans!
>
I think I'd build reactors in the Midwest north enough to use their heat
to provide free heat for water and homes and businesses in those cities.
I'd ship electricity using high voltage DC to California.



> As to the collapsing dollar, think about Japanese
> cars and TV sets, just to name a couple of examples.
> A weakened dollar helps exports, and exports help
> exporters and diminishing circles away from the
> exporters. It hurts anybody directly who buys
> anything made in whole or part outside the USA,
> which has a heckuvalot more impact on most
> people.
>
If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:02:20 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> >I suspect things will correct.
>> >>
>> >> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
>> >> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
>> >> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
>> >> our seed-corn now.
>> >>
>> >You are simply ridiculous.
>>
>> Yet another person with his head in the sand.
>> Just see what happens.
>>
>Of course no matter how crazy your comments, it's me who's got my head
>in the sand. Nutty conspiracy theories are all true, BTW. You know why I
>know that, because someone said so.



Conspiracy wasn't mentioned.

I haven't been following your posts. Since you're not crazy,
what was your initial position on the Iraq war, or on running
the debt up trillions of dollars?



<snip>


>If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
>US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
>should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
>dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
>that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.


It makes more sense if the money people get for
their work is worth something.

How is a country with structural deficiencies the
same as a country with excess industrial capacity?
Never mind, don't bother answering that.
 
Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:02:20 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> >I suspect things will correct.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
> >> >> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
> >> >> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
> >> >> our seed-corn now.
> >> >>
> >> >You are simply ridiculous.
> >>
> >> Yet another person with his head in the sand.
> >> Just see what happens.
> >>
> >Of course no matter how crazy your comments, it's me who's got my head
> >in the sand. Nutty conspiracy theories are all true, BTW. You know why I
> >know that, because someone said so.
>
> Conspiracy wasn't mentioned.
>
Not in so many words.


> I haven't been following your posts. Since you're not crazy,
> what was your initial position on the Iraq war, or on running
> the debt up trillions of dollars?
>
1) I've always supported the Iraq effort because I believe that only by
dealing with the Middle East and its hopelessness can we hope to deal
with the threat of hypernihilism as shown to us by bin Laden on 9/11.
2) The debt has been trillions of dollars for decades. I've always
supported dealing with that by restraining government spending which is
mostly social programmes and entitlements. For example, I've insisted,
to no effect of course, that the SSTF surplus be actually invested
instead of just spent. The Liberals oppose that.




> <snip>
>
> >If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
> >US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
> >should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
> >dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
> >that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.
>
> It makes more sense if the money people get for
> their work is worth something.
>
How much has the US dollar gone down against the euro or the pound or
the yuan? Do you see the price of stuff going up anything like that?



> How is a country with structural deficiencies the
> same as a country with excess industrial capacity?
> Never mind, don't bother answering that.
>
Why shouldn't I answer that? A country that has industrial capacity that
its people can't use to better their lives because they have no money
isn't a country where things are working well. We see a problem in the
world today in that some countries have a functional consumer base which
is buying and living and enjoying being alive. In other countries, we
see people if not starving certainly not enjoying the fruits of their
labours.

Americans can build DVD players. They can't build them for $20. The
reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
don't speak English right.



--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:33:41 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:02:20 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> >> >I suspect things will correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
>> >> >> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
>> >> >> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
>> >> >> our seed-corn now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >You are simply ridiculous.
>> >>
>> >> Yet another person with his head in the sand.
>> >> Just see what happens.
>> >>
>> >Of course no matter how crazy your comments, it's me who's got my head
>> >in the sand. Nutty conspiracy theories are all true, BTW. You know why I
>> >know that, because someone said so.
>>
>> Conspiracy wasn't mentioned.
>>
>Not in so many words.


Not in any words, by me anyway.


>> I haven't been following your posts. Since you're not crazy,
>> what was your initial position on the Iraq war, or on running
>> the debt up trillions of dollars?
>>
>1) I've always supported the Iraq effort because I believe that only by
>dealing with the Middle East and its hopelessness can we hope to deal
>with the threat of hypernihilism as shown to us by bin Laden on 9/11.


I'd say your wrong, and even most of the people who originally
supported Bush, seeing the disaster it's turned into and maybe
finally realizing they were deceived, now think it's wrong.


>2) The debt has been trillions of dollars for decades. I've always
>supported dealing with that by restraining government spending which is
>mostly social programmes and entitlements. For example, I've insisted,
>to no effect of course, that the SSTF surplus be actually invested
>instead of just spent. The Liberals oppose that.


It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
high before since WWII when there was a much better
(IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html



>
>
>
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
>> >US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
>> >should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
>> >dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
>> >that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.
>>
>> It makes more sense if the money people get for
>> their work is worth something.
>>
>How much has the US dollar gone down against the euro or the pound or
>the yuan? Do you see the price of stuff going up anything like that?


Not yet, but do you think Europeans can long afford to
sell Americans Mercedes Benz's for only 2/3 what they
were getting for them before?

I heard on radio or TV yesterday or the day before about
the prices of imports increasing, so it is happening.



>
>
>
>> How is a country with structural deficiencies the
>> same as a country with excess industrial capacity?
>> Never mind, don't bother answering that.
>>
>Why shouldn't I answer that? A country that has industrial capacity that
>its people can't use to better their lives because they have no money
>isn't a country where things are working well.


OK, that's a good answer. China for example.



>We see a problem in the
>world today in that some countries have a functional consumer base which
>is buying and living and enjoying being alive. In other countries, we
>see people if not starving certainly not enjoying the fruits of their
>labours.
>
>Americans can build DVD players. They can't build them for $20. The
>reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
>other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
>desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
>because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
>strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
>are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
>work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
>don't speak English right.


When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
and still preserve American wages.

I've found that Indian tech support people are often technically
excellent, but their English is often very hard for a native English
speaker to understand.
 
Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:33:41 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:02:20 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> >> >> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >I suspect things will correct.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not unless the dollar recovers. I think it will probably
> >> >> >> fall further. Wherever it lands, it will be years before it
> >> >> >> recovers, if it ever recovers at all, because we've eaten
> >> >> >> our seed-corn now.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >You are simply ridiculous.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yet another person with his head in the sand.
> >> >> Just see what happens.
> >> >>
> >> >Of course no matter how crazy your comments, it's me who's got my head
> >> >in the sand. Nutty conspiracy theories are all true, BTW. You know why I
> >> >know that, because someone said so.
> >>
> >> Conspiracy wasn't mentioned.
> >>
> >Not in so many words.
>
> Not in any words, by me anyway.
>
> >> I haven't been following your posts. Since you're not crazy,
> >> what was your initial position on the Iraq war, or on running
> >> the debt up trillions of dollars?
> >>
> >1) I've always supported the Iraq effort because I believe that only by
> >dealing with the Middle East and its hopelessness can we hope to deal
> >with the threat of hypernihilism as shown to us by bin Laden on 9/11.
>
> I'd say your wrong, and even most of the people who originally
> supported Bush, seeing the disaster it's turned into and maybe
> finally realizing they were deceived, now think it's wrong.
>
What disaster?



> >2) The debt has been trillions of dollars for decades. I've always
> >supported dealing with that by restraining government spending which is
> >mostly social programmes and entitlements. For example, I've insisted,
> >to no effect of course, that the SSTF surplus be actually invested
> >instead of just spent. The Liberals oppose that.
>
> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
> high before since WWII when there was a much better
> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>
Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
control?



> >> >If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
> >> >US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
> >> >should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
> >> >dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
> >> >that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.
> >>
> >> It makes more sense if the money people get for
> >> their work is worth something.
> >>
> >How much has the US dollar gone down against the euro or the pound or
> >the yuan? Do you see the price of stuff going up anything like that?
>
> Not yet, but do you think Europeans can long afford to
> sell Americans Mercedes Benz's for only 2/3 what they
> were getting for them before?
>
Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
enough o get people to buy it.




> >> How is a country with structural deficiencies the
> >> same as a country with excess industrial capacity?
> >> Never mind, don't bother answering that.
> >>
> >Why shouldn't I answer that? A country that has industrial capacity that
> >its people can't use to better their lives because they have no money
> >isn't a country where things are working well.
>
> OK, that's a good answer. China for example.
>
So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.




> >We see a problem in the
> >world today in that some countries have a functional consumer base which
> >is buying and living and enjoying being alive. In other countries, we
> >see people if not starving certainly not enjoying the fruits of their
> >labours.
> >
> >Americans can build DVD players. They can't build them for $20. The
> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
> >don't speak English right.
>
> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
> and still preserve American wages.
>
What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?



> I've found that Indian tech support people are often technically
> excellent, but their English is often very hard for a native English
> speaker to understand.
>
Thye coold werk un thta.


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."

+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
 
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:44:47 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>Rumpelstiltskin wrote:


<snip>

>> It's been trillions since Reagan, true, but it wasn't that
>> high before since WWII when there was a much better
>> (IMV) reason for going into heavy debt. See the chart:
>> http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
>>
>Oh it's Reagan's fault that spending on social programmes is out of
>control?


The debt has been run up almost entirely by Reagan and
the Bushes. Clinton's administration is the only time the
brakes were applied. Charge-and-spend is a lot worse than
pay-and-spend, and it's why we have a nine-trillion dollar
debt. If the Republican party feels it isn't responsible for
anything even when it's in power, then I guess it never
feels it's responsible.
?



>
>> >> >If it makes more sense to make it in the US, that means more jobs in the
>> >> >US. And maybe you can't afford 5 DVD players anymore. The thing you
>> >> >should watch though is the export-based countries. They use the US as a
>> >> >dumping ground for their excess industrial capacity. If they can't do
>> >> >that, maybe they'll have to correct their own structural deficiencies.
>> >>
>> >> It makes more sense if the money people get for
>> >> their work is worth something.
>> >>
>> >How much has the US dollar gone down against the euro or the pound or
>> >the yuan? Do you see the price of stuff going up anything like that?
>>
>> Not yet, but do you think Europeans can long afford to
>> sell Americans Mercedes Benz's for only 2/3 what they
>> were getting for them before?
>>
>Probably not, which means that fewer of them will be sold to Americans.
>What does that mean? American cars will go down in price and German ones
>will go up. At some point the crap that Detroit produces might be good
>enough o get people to buy it.



Ah, the joys of diminished world status. I'm hearing this
from the Republican party apologists now, and let me tell
you how very, very persuaded I am. Viva Mexico!



>> >> How is a country with structural deficiencies the
>> >> same as a country with excess industrial capacity?
>> >> Never mind, don't bother answering that.
>> >>
>> >Why shouldn't I answer that? A country that has industrial capacity that
>> >its people can't use to better their lives because they have no money
>> >isn't a country where things are working well.
>>
>> OK, that's a good answer. China for example.
>>
>So they are an "export" economy dumping their stuff that their own
>people really need on Americans at cut rate prices because they can't
>figure out how to sell it to themselves. That's pretty screwed up.



I guess that's where w'ere headed. Our export goods
are getting cheaper, our good jobs are getting downsized
out.



>> >We see a problem in the
>> >world today in that some countries have a functional consumer base which
>> >is buying and living and enjoying being alive. In other countries, we
>> >see people if not starving certainly not enjoying the fruits of their
>> >labours.
>> >
>> >Americans can build DVD players. They can't build them for $20. The
>> >reason that Americans are shut out of these sorts of jobs is because
>> >other countries have economies that are so bad and people that are so
>> >desperate that they will take anything at any wage. That can't last
>> >because as they are bootstrapped up to betterment, they will respond by
>> >strongly suggesting they deserve those fruits of their labours too. We
>> >are seeing that in India today where workers are simply unwilling to
>> >work long hours for low pay only to get yelled at by Americans that they
>> >don't speak English right.
>>
>> When we had strong tariffs, we could take care of the problem
>> and still preserve American wages.
>>
>What would that do to domestic prices? So you oppose free trade?



Yes I do oppose "free trade", because it hasn't worked
to the benefit of the American people (as opposed to some
investors). That's one I won't blame just the Republicans
for, because the Democrats favoured it too. I'm guilty of
supporting it myself, until I saw what it was doing, but I saw
what it was doing quite a long time ago.



>> I've found that Indian tech support people are often technically
>> excellent, but their English is often very hard for a native English
>> speaker to understand.
>>
>Thye coold werk un thta.
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Canadian oil prices jump as traders brace for supply constraint
Replies
0
Views
16
WorldNews
WorldNews
P
Do-Nothing Democrats Let Oil Prices Get Close to $100 a Barrel
Replies
0
Views
22
Patriot Games
P
G
Oil Traders Fear US Attack on Iran
2
Replies
36
Views
65
robw
R
G
"It's the Crude, Dude"
Replies
0
Views
24
Gandalf Grey
G
G
On Entering the Tough Oil Era
Replies
0
Views
20
Gandalf Grey
G
Back
Top