jump to last post 1-46 of 46 discussions (127 posts)

What is the reason of fluctuation of prices of oil since last year?

  1. Aqeel Saeed profile image61
    Aqeel Saeedposted 7 years ago

    It fluctuate between $ 148 per barrel to $ 33 per barrel.

  2. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    greed for the highs.

    the theory of capitalism says that the market should charge as much as the purchaser can bear.  it was a test.  $150 a barrel crude was more than the market would bear without a backlash.

    when oil increases, the cost of gasoline increases.  when the cost of gasoline increases, the cost of everything increases because that gasoline is needed to manufacture and transport those items all over the country (let's assume U.S. which is the primary consumer of oil based products).  when that inflation hits goods, people cannot afford to buy them and don't. 

    what you see now in the U.S. which one might call a recession and I think in another year might be a depression is what happens when you jack the price of oil up to insane prices for no apparent reason with no increase in pay to match.

  3. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    The oil market doesn't work soley according to free market economic rules.  OPEC pretty much sees to that.  Although they can rarely keep production stable when prices go up.  You can try to control the market but the market will have its say.

    Demand for oil drives the price.  Supply becomes a factor when demand increases faster than supply.  Thus the price goes up.  When demand falls from high prices or supply increases, you'll see the price go down.  It really is that simple.  Gas prices in the US go up in the summer because people travel and go more places in cars, trucks, buses, planes, etc. than the do during winter.  So demand is up.  Unless supply can absorb this extra demand, the price will go up.

  4. kmackey32 profile image82
    kmackey32posted 7 years ago

    Years ago prices never went up and down this much!!!

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sure, but that's because we had a more or less stable currency.  Since then we've had to pay for our wars and now our deficit spending over social issues.  How did you think that we pay for all of this stuff.  The government just doesn't have all this money laying around.  Like most Americans they fund things through debt.  But unlike most Americans, they can print more money.  This causes all prices to go up.

      While that's true for oil as well, there are a few other factors to take into consideration.  First, other nations use oil too.  China and India for example, have been using more and more oil, so that drives prices up.  Last year prices crashed because winter came and with the depression that's on, productivity fell and demand for oil decreased too.  So more demand drove it up and less demand drove it down.

  5. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Supply and demand has nothing to do with the last years changes in oil prices.  It came out in a hearing last year before the Senate it was nothing more than blatant speculation.

    "What is most interesting however is that crude oil prices have increased almost 50 percent this year alone, while overall demand has remained relatively constant.  This paradox has resulted in some interesting research that officially came to light on May 20th of this year when Michael W. Masters, a long-short equity hedge fund manager of 12 years, addressed the United States Senate. Instead of focusing on the traditional fundamentals of supply and demand, Masters revealed what he calls “Index Fund Speculation” as having been partially responsible for the rapid price appreciation of crude oil and other commodities."

    http://news.goldseek.com/Altavest/1212427800.php

  6. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Here is the actually testimony from Senate dot gov:

    http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/052008Masters.pdf

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but that's the usual nonsense they trot out when prices on commodities go up.  It's happened time and again.  They can always find one guy to back up their story.  Plus the guy is a hedge fund trader.  Who didn't have all that great a year, last year.  So yeah, he's willing to point fingers at someone else, anyone else so he can sucker people with trusting him with their money. 

      It's summer, prices go up.  People drive more in the summer.  Demand goes up, price goes up.  It really is that simple.  All futures trading tells us is the probable changes in a market.  Will oil go up or down.  It's really an integral part of the market and helps people make decisions.  If I'm the owner of a trucking company and I see the futures market for oil is indicating that oil is going to spike, then I can start planning now to weather the spike and I'm not caught by surprise. 

      If the Feds tinker with the futures market, then business owners will lost that ability and more businesses will fail as a consequence.  You don't want to enact policies that are going to kill businesses especially in a depression.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I can't say I'd be delighted to see the government mess with futures, but I can say that everyone knows it was pure speculation that drove oil prices, coincidentally wiping out pensioners when they fell again, as they had to. 

        If anything has been killing businesses lately, it's oil price greed and stupidity, short term profit thinking.  That wiped out dozens of businesses who couldn't figure a way to get around the sudden quadrupled for no reason expense and the lack of buying power of the American consumer that came with it.

        All this is part of what put us into this spiral of economic deaths.  Consumers can't buy, layoffs proceed, more consumers can't buy.  Smart speculation there.

        Same with housing.  Retards.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          But it wasn't just pure speculation.  By last year we had Chavez as well as OPEC cutting production.  Ahmenejad made it a point to try to drive oil prices up.  We had a war in Iraq.  Katrina showed us how vulnerable we were to having any oil platforms shut down and how tight we were with refinery production in this country.  That more than anything else reflects gas prices.  It doesn't matter what the cost of oil is.  If you can't refine enough gasoline to meet demand, price will skyrocket.

          As you can see, it's not just as simple as oil prices or gas prices.  You have to look at drilling, price manipulation, production capacity, transportation ability, and a myriad of other factors before you can get an idea of what a price should be for a gallon of gas.  And, of course, you have to factor in government policy into the whole mess which just adds a layer of complexity and makes things more expensive.  Journalists might enjoy the easy story, but things are rarely so simple in real life.

  7. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Actual cause of that kind of specualtion was too low of interest rates which put too much liquitity that led to increased and riskier speculation.

  8. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Oil sat pretty at 35$ a barrel until we invaded Iraq.  The day after the invasion oil jumped to 60$ almost doubling and stayed there until the huge rises last year and then the decrease back toward pre-Iraq prices because of the backlash.

    I presume it will stay in the 50$ - 70$ range because oil producers aren't going to give up profit after the American consumer has already accepted the higher prices, but any higher is going to keep getting backlashes.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, war tends to do that.  I remember during Desert Storm oil went from 18-20 a barrel to over 40 a barrel.  Back then, however, we didn't have increasing demand from places like India and China that would have driven prices up even further.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'll cede the increased demand from China as part of some of the natural rise.  That's why I think prices will stick around 60$.

  9. kmackey32 profile image82
    kmackey32posted 7 years ago

    I just think theres always another excuse to raise the prices. Its summer, oh we invaded Iraq, Wait a minute its raining today!!!!bla bla bla. People just want to get rich!!

    1. 0
      Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      you're right.

    2. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's not that easy.  What they didn't report along with "windfall" profits last year was the skyrocketing cost of drilling for oil.  Not only that, there's less money for exploration.  Most of the easy oil has been gotten out.  Now it will be harder and harder to get the oil we already know about out.  We'll also have to explore for new sources of oil.  If not, supply of oil will dwindle fast.  It's not just a one time thing or people trying to gouge, there are serious economic fundamentals at work that are driving price.  We ignore those fundamentals at our own risk.  Have you ever thought about what the consequences would be if the government is wrong about pricing?  If they're wrong what sort of impact will that have on things?

  10. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Chavez tried to stabalize prices at 60$ a barrel and the U.S. gamblers had our government throw a fit and considered him an enemy.

    He tried to keep prices low.  I remember that.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No he didn't.  He needed oil prices high so he could pay for all of his social engineering projects.  Cheap oil will kill Chavez.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They love him down there.  He uses oil profits to fund health care for all and all kind of social virtues.  Cheap oil might kill him, if there were to be cheap oil, but there won't.

        Chavez is the best thing that ever happened to Venezuela.

        Oh and gas is 14 cents a gallon in Venezuela.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Tell that to the cattle ranchers he ripped off.  And are you aware that inflation is running at 18% annually?  That's going to make people poor.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of … _-_present 

          Oh, he also instituted price controls which has caused shortages and encouraged smuggling and an thriving black market.  So it really doesn't matte what the price of gas is. If your economy is screwed up, people still suffer.  All of these things will gang up on him sooner or later especially since he got himself voted Presidente for life.  At least, in the end, he'll be held accountable for his offenses.

          1. 0
            Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see that.  Even Stalin was still voted the most popular or second most popular (I forget which) Russian in Russia recently, some poll.

            We tried to have Chavez removed twice, we the U.S. and his people put him back in.  They adore him, other than the top ten percent elite and no one expected THEM to adore him.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Tell that to Misha, I'm sure he has horror stories of the things Stalin did to people his parents and grandparents age.  Well just have to see with Chavez.  I'm pretty sure that things will start to go bad soon with him just like they have with his buddy Ahmenejad.

              1. 0
                Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I think Misha and I did talk about this because we were hanging out when the Poll broke. lol.

  11. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    All the more reason for green energy, imo.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Green energy doesn't give the energy output that oil does.  We'll have to cut back somewhere.  Do you want to spend less energy on food?  What about all the resources we've wasted on building houses people can't afford?  Do you think those resources could have been better utilized?  What if Obama's plans for health care cause supply of health care to dry up?  How will that affect people?  What's the effect going to be of all this debt we're piling up?  How's that going to be reflected in prices.  Nobody in the mainstream is asking these questions.  It's all Change you can believe in and Yes we can.  What if they are all wrong?

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        In on the cessation of building unaffordable housing. 

        In fact, I read last week construction for affordable housing is starting to increase, which I had hoped for and am glad to see, and housing sales for housing under 100k is coming back up.
        Finally a bit of sense, little pink on the horizon.

      2. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Einstein said, you remember him right?  Einstein said:

        "Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions....

        ...I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

        I won't quote the whole essay found here:

        http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php

        But if you read it Einstein says that the most efficient distribution of scarce resources cannot be achieved through capitalism, but only through socialism.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Einstein should have stuck to physics, he was not an economist by any stretch of the imagination.  How does a socialist know they're allocating the right resources to a job?  What happens when they make a mistake?  Are they willing to admit it when they make a mistake? 

          At least in a private company I can be sure that I will lose my job if I screw up one too many times.  That doesn't happen in the public sector. 

          The reason a socialist can't be sure if they've made the right decision is because price is an indicator of what people want.  If price goes up either demand or supply has changed.  A businessperson will increase supply to ease the scarcity of supply or will increase the supply of a good to meet the new demand.  How does a socialist know enough is enough?

          1. 0
            Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Economic scientists.

            And we REWARD private sector for screwing up, at least on the top levels.  Bailout.  neutral

            Back in a bit, watering my garden so expect delays.  smile

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Economics isn't a science in the way physics is.  That's why so many hard scientists have such simplistic views of economics.  Hey, I'm totally against those bailouts.  That's wasting resources that could be put to better use.  So you know that sort of economics is typical of fascist economies.  Fascist governments partner with "big business" to control the economy.  Just like socialist government partner with "workers" to control the economy.  Both economies shift wealth to their supporters, but neither economy is inherently stable.

  12. sweigand profile image60
    sweigandposted 7 years ago

    I blame the Somali pirates...

  13. kmackey32 profile image82
    kmackey32posted 7 years ago

    hmm well whatever you think, always an excuse. It would be nice for someone to find something we can put in are gas tank other than gas an say, fuck them oil companys.

  14. kmackey32 profile image82
    kmackey32posted 7 years ago

    o wow I just found out you cant actually type a sware word on here, they change it. lol

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You can see it when you reply, but when it's posted it gets edited. lol

  15. BundleBoy profile image68
    BundleBoyposted 7 years ago

    Specultation in Trader circles.

  16. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    I would call the government we have corporatist.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sure it is, but corporatist or socialist, they both use the same economic techniques to get their agendas on track.  We know that those tactics don't work in a corporatist sense, we see that today in places like Iceland and the US, but neither will those tactics work for socialists.  We see that in places like Iran and will soon see them in places like Venezuela.  You can't spend your way out of a depression, you have to save you way out of one.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If by save you mean have people generally put enough in savings to allow banks to loan, assuming they loan, reasonably on good business ventures, then yes.

        However banks have money now, taxpayer money, and they still don't loan.

  17. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    That's because they know the Alt-A loans are going to reset soon.  They hope to use taxpayer money to weather that crisis.  It won't be enough though.  If Alt-A people only default at the rate of subprime borrowers, our banks will be insolvent.  I suspect they will default at a higher rate.  When the subprime borrowers began to default, we didn't have the the unemployment problems we have now.  So many of those families are just barely making their payments that when the interest rates shoot up, they'll default.  Our banks only have about 4% reserves to cover those losses.  Once those reserves are lost due to defaults those banks will no longer be in business.

  18. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    I agree about the defaults.  It's going to be bad.

  19. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    That's why I'm planning to get a bit of land and build a homestead.  All paid for with cash, of course.  Then I won't have to worry about what those idiots in Washington do.  I'll have food and shelter.

    1. 0
      Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      smart planning.

      it could get that bad.  that's why I was thinking of communal living with my family and some close friends.

      1. ledefensetech profile image80
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        My advice would be to think of it like a business.  What can you and your mates do that will bring some cash in.  I intend to do the cows, goats, eggs, soap, milk, etc.  I figure anything above and beyond costs and property taxes will go into savings or other investments.  That way even if I fail in business (or have it confiscated), I'll still have a viable backup plan.

        1. 0
          Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          again, smart planning.

          I had considered crafts and stuff, along with excess vegetables for barter or sale.  I hadn't considered livestock.

          1. ledefensetech profile image80
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I'm more than just a pretty face.  lol  You might want to check out:  http://www.homestead.org/  They have a lot of articles about livestock and homesteading that I've found useful when planning.  You'd enjoy the forums, I think.  If you visit them, you may be able to see why I get argumentative there, so I avoid it now.

            1. 0
              Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you!  I'm just looking into this stuff, so the link is way useful.  I'm a city girl, so really this is the stuff of last resort for me, however... I see what you see about the economy and at the least it's one possibly viable solution.

              1. ledefensetech profile image80
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You're most welcome.  I would have thought the place would be populated with some great old style homesteaders, you know frontiers people.  I think they're more communal though.  Were I you, I'd check out the forums too.

                1. 0
                  Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I just went and browsed the topics.  What an excellent link!  I have a neighbor who knows all this stuff already.  If I flee, I'm hauling him with meh.  lol

                  1. ledefensetech profile image80
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah it certainly helps if you have someone you can kidnap.  I plan to move around where there are people who do stuff like that, so I can rely on them for help and they can do the same from me.  I'm sure they'll be very helpful if I can show them how to turn a profit.

  20. 61
    Blackngoldbananaposted 7 years ago

    Gas prices are confusing and I must admit, the one thing that brings excitement into my old and boring life.  One gas station in my town gas is currently $2.49 a gallon....another gas station, different side of town, same company, gas is currently $2.39 a gallon.  Why the difference?  To make things even more interesting, in the city where I work (30 miles away)gas is $2.69!

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is the station that has the lesser price cash only? If so, the can afford to pay less for gas because they don't have to pay credit card fees.  If they do accept credit cards, then their buyer might have gotten a deal from their supplier.  The city you work in is higher probably because of demand.  It's a little known fact that gas stations don't make their money from gas.  They only get about 2% above what it costs them to buy gas.  They make most of their money from what they sell in the store.  That's why it costs so much more relative to a grocery store.

      Once you start thinking like a businessperson and asking yourself questions like "Where do I make my money from" things look less and less like conspiracy and you start to see the underlying economic reasons behind things like price increases and decreases.

  21. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Arguing? Uh-oh big_smile

    Just a quick note, I am not going to waste my time on this thread. smile From my point of view prices (especially bubbles like last year oil) are driven not by speculation, not by supply and demand - but by perception or popular mood. More and more people are buying, EXPECTING the prices to go higher. When no one is left to buy, prices crush. smile

    Not going to defend the point, just throwing it up to the mix here, those who have ears will hear smile

    1. 0
      Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I still think it's speculation but I'm absolutely delighted you joined the discussion.  If your theory is true, perhaps we can collectively 'think' prices back into the 35$ a barrel thing.  I'd like to see some collective thinking at housing too.

  22. 69
    logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

    Speculation is the driving force behind the rising oil prices.  We have less demand and more supply, yet the price goes up because futures are being manipulated on the commodities trading board.  There is no correlation between supply and demand any more, futures are just a financial instrument to be manipulated by large traders.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Um we have less supply.  Venezuela alone ships about 10%less oil today than it did ten years ago.  More scarce equals a higher price.  Too many people around here see cabals where there are none.

  23. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    prices rose in july because of speculation.  some company bit it for that one employee's mistake that just cost them 10 mil.  they canned him.

    prices for crude are expected to continue to drop.  check yahoo U.S. front page or economy/stock markets.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's July, demand always goes up in the summer.  At least so far.  We'll just have to see if that trend continues.  All speculators are doing is taking that into account.  Speculation is an effect, not a cause.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        disagree totally.  all the rise last year was pure speculation.  we might have survived the housing bubble, it mnade life twice as hard, took up all extraneous cash for rent/mortgage and slowed the economy.  but the speculation in oil that rebounded on all prices of everything was the final straw that caused our current death throes.

        see the unemployment figures today?

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The rise in gas prices had nothing to do with the housing bubble bursting.  That was due entirely to the Fed fiddling with interest rates.  All that crap just hit us at the same time.  An increase in the price of oil does not cause all prices to go up.  What happens is that as the price of one commodity goes up, spending in other areas goes down.  Of course that upset the applecart concerning consumerism in this country, but heck you can't live beyond your means forever.  Falling housing prices means that you can't sell off the equity in your home to buy more stuff.  Frankly that should have happened a long time ago.

          As for the unemployment figures, sure, I am among that number so that's the only one that really counts.  What you don't realize is that all the "good" economic news over the last few years was wrong.  The housing bubble masked the cracks in the foundation of the economy.  Most of our job growth was in construction where we were busy building homes that fewer and fewer people could afford.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out we couldn't do this forever.  We've been in trouble since the turn of the century.

  24. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    oh and the market really plummeted today.  I cheered.  sorry, I just hate rich people who rip everyone else off, that way.  cuase and effect, or god, call it what you will.  this will be a time of great reckoning.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      My dear, do you know how many people have their retirement and pension funds tied up in the market?  They're the real losers.  Truly wealthy people divested themselves from the stock market and invested in gold long ago.  That's how they remain wealthy.  The common person, naive as always, is left holding the bag, as always.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Gambling is a sin.  Hard work should pay better than gambling.

  25. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    little side news, madoff's wife was ejected from her 7 mil apartment today also.  she tried to hang on to a particular fur coat on the way out but they took that from her too.

    roflmao

  26. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    it's true that too low of interest rate led to too much liquidity and that was part of the rise in oil, but also because housing had burst and they needed a new bubble or well, this now, this was going to happen.

    they picked oil.  what a stupid thing to do.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They didn't pick anything.  The market did.  That's why you don't want to screw with it.  Nobody, and I mean nobody is smart enough to figure out all the nuances of the market.  It's enough for us to know it works and to leave it alone.  Sadly we can't seem to do that.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Shut it down.  Nothing good has come from the market in years and nothing good will in the near future.  All the market creates is monopoly money with which to browbeat earners from getting decent wages.

        Shut down the market.  Start investing in businesses again, that's real growth, not playdough money that never existed.

  27. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    I do know all the good news for years has been false and based on bubbles and lies.

    I knew it years ago and everyone thought I was crazy. 

    Housing is down 41% and still dropping good.  It needs that correction.  Unemployment is still rising and not showing signs of stopping.  States aren't giving back tax returns and are keeping it to make interest rather than handing it back to the people that loaned it to them via tax withdrawals yearly.

    Some mess.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What we're seeing is massive correction.  When you have industry fall 40% in this country and financials go from 10% to 30% of the economy, something is wrong.  There used to be a saying "they sweat, we think".  Alvin Toffler, said it or quoted it in "The Third Wave" I think.  Just goes to show that you can't predict the future.  The only way you can gave a sound economy is if it makes things people are willing to buy.  People set prices not government dictates. 

      Still if things are left alone, we should see a recovery within the next year.  Unfortunately we have a bunch of "social engineers" in power and there's no telling what they will do.

      Why do you assume that people were given a choice about where their retirement funds were put.  Rather than a savings account, those funds were used to speculate in the stock market.  It's not a surprise really, when you allow fractional reserve banking you allow all the rest.  If it's OK to use other people's money to originate loans then it must be OK to use money people earmark for retirement to play the stock market.  This stuff is so rooted into the foundation of our society I don't see an easy way to get it all out without destroying it.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        people aren't stupid.  what we need is saving's accounts with decent interest rates.  one shouldn't have to gamble as a part of life, just to be safe.  what is more unsafe than risk-taking your future?

        and what people always forget about risk-taking is that sometimes you lose.  bubba wah?  playing the market is for suckers.  at this stage people would have better odds in Vegas.

        how many times in Vegas do you see somebody lose their whole stake and go up to the payout window and demand it back.... then think about the bailouts.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry but I really rather think people rather are...dense, shall I say.  You don't have a choice in risking your money.  Even savings accounts are used in fractional reserve banking to originate loans.  The only reason banks pay interest is because people found out that rather than holding their money, banks were writing loans for interest and keeping the extra interest.  So in addition to making money charging people to hold their money, they were using it to make even more money.  Not that I have anything against that, but people have a right to decide if their money will be put at risk and how much they want to risk.  People deserve the right to control their money.

          Nor am I in any way agreeing with the bailouts.  You'd be hard pressed to find a larger non-violent crime.  The problem is that politicians have control of our printing presses and monetary supply.  Since we also elect our leaders, there's an incentive for them to support people who vote for them versus people who don't.  Look at the way the shareholders of GM were robbed to give more money to the unions.  If that isn't thuggery and robbery, I don't know the meaning of the word.

          1. 0
            Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.  A bunch of poor slobs who didn't know any better thought their money was safe in rich people's hands.  I never fell for the media adulation of the rich simply because they are rich and I never thought rich people had any great desire to share anything with me.

            Possibly you are right.  People are dense if that's what they fell for.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I'm just feeling a bit contrary today.  And I think I have a touch of low blood sugar.  I tend to get irritable and cranky when that happens.  Plus I have this little flaw about arrogance and pride.  I know, I know, it must come as a shocking surprise to hear me say that.  big_smile

              It's hard seeing people castigate things and not understanding the true importance of it.  People say capitalism is evil.  Profit is evil.  It's not.  It only becomes evil when people try to control the outcome of such a system.  The intent doesn't matter.  It could be fora  personal good or "the greater good" each path is a dark and evil one. 

              More and more I'm coming to the realization that my homestead project is probably the most important one I'm engaged in now.  I don't want to be a homesteader, necessarily, but I may not have a choice if I wish to remain somewhat independent and free.  I see people on here arguing over the silliest of dialectical nonsense and despair.  I guess that it just hit me recently that we really are going over the cliff this time, there won't be anyone or anything to save us.  It just got real.

              1. 0
                Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                When I read today that California is giving out IOUs instead of tax refunds and several other states still haven't refunded and might not be able to, plus the unemployment figures, plus signs people were still trying to resurrect $150 oil via speculation again and kill off anything left in this country economically, I had one of those days too.

                Yeah, I think we've gone over the cliff and people in the media keep saying "so far, so good" on the way down.

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Well states are screwed.  Unlike the Feds they can't just print more money.  In a way that's a good thing.  CA is sad.  The Governater tried to tell politicians and the people that this would happen, but the people told him to keep the gravy train running.  Honestly,  I don't feel sorry for them.  They've been at the forefront of living beyond their means for generations now, it's no surprise that they're the first state to fail.  I imagine MA is tottering as well.

                  1. 0
                    Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll pull the article for you.  I think it was like, Alabama and Georgia.  Hold on.

                    And agreed on California.

  28. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    My posts might be a little tongue in cheek today.  :p

    Sorry, I feel feisty and I'm having fun. smile

    Anyway, only a little tongue in cheek, not all.  big_smile

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's OK, I could use cheering up.  It's all been doom and gloom lately and I don't see signs of it getting any better.  Economically or politically.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        well that's why I included the madoff news, I thought that was pretty funny and upbeat. tongue

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'd have left him free.  He went from the guy who started NASDAQ, to a pariah.  Back in the olden days, such a man would have been left free so people could stare in wonder and warn their children of the evils of being a man such as that.  It would have killed him slowly by degrees.  His reputation in tatters, he would never have allowed in his circle of friends again.  Oh yes, he would have been pariah.  That would have been a fitting end for one such as he.  Of course I can be petty, cruel and vengeful and I am working on that little flaw, but that would have been a more fitting punishment.

          1. 0
            Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            considering the ease of federal prison, you may be right.  he's doing better than a lot of amercians his kind of ponzi scheme left in the lurch.  rent paid, 3 square a day (and good) and no thugs like in state prisons.

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Let's be honest, shall we?  The vast majority of people he bilked were rich people like himself.  He didn't bilk grannies or minimum wage earners, the bilked the rich.  Rich or poor that doesn't absolve you of doing due diligence no matter the source.  I wouldn't have accepted Madoff's scheme because I would not have been able to answer one simple question.  The question is not how much of a return you're supposed to get, but how does the investment make its money.  If that question cannot be answered with clarity, then you pass on the investment.  Will Rogers said it best: "The return of your money is more important than the return on your money".

              1. 0
                Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Actually I admit to finding that somewhat amusing.

                But other ponzi schemes, like oil, took retirement savings from working people.  It's all in the same group.

                Madoff's victims in particular however were a particularly deserving group.  They were rich off other people's money anyway, they invested to make even more because of their enate greed with 'no questions asked' on a very shady deal.  My sympathy for them isn't all that high.

                1. ledefensetech profile image80
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  How else would you fund businesses if you don't allow investing?

                  1. 0
                    Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    How did we before?  You tell me, I don't know but maybe people could like, save up, and open their own small businesses instead of one huge conglomerate controlling the entire american workforce?

  29. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    Much-needed tax refunds delayed from Ga. to Calif.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_ … ax_returns

    "But critics worry governments are withholding funds that rightly belong to taxpayers when they need the extra cash the most. And some of the tardy states are fast approaching a stiff deadline of their own: The longer they wait, the more likely they'll have to pony up interest from thinning state coffers.

    That prospect could soon become a reality in Georgia and Alabama, where tax officials are racing to beat a mid-July deadline to send hundreds of thousands of tax refunds or risk racking up millions of dollars in interest."

    Also California, Kansas, Missouri, Maryland.

    FTA: "Some states say plummeting tax collections drove them to hold on to the money so they can make ends meet."

    That's what happens when you unemployee a bunch of people to keep the rich superrich.  We won't make them hire people or keep a viable company going and nobody wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes so duh, revenue slumps.

    The way out of this is to hire people and pay them more and let them consume us out of the depression.   That's what Obama is trying to do via his long term strategy.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's exactly what we've been doing all along.  You don't spend your way out of a depression.  The only way to get the economy back on track is to leave it along.  Savings and investment are the only things that get an economy moving.  Why do you think it took until after World War II to get over the Depression?  During the war, people were forced to save.  Due to rationing there wasn't anything to buy and you were either working in defense industries or fighting in the war.  It's kind of hard to spend your paycheck in the middle of a war zone.  Did you know there were people who believed that after the War we'd be in a depression because the government would stop spending?  The post World War II years were boom years because the government stopped spending and taxing and spending and taxing.  Only savings and investment drive economies to perform.

  30. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    lack of competition makes so called capitalism a dead thing.  you stated the reason... increasing corporatism. 

    all those mergers and layoffs that kept building the market the last 20 years or so... that's a good part of what led us to this.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not necessarily.  In any free market, you're going to have acquisitions and mergers.  Companies that fail merge with companies that succeed.  It's kind of like an ecosystem in that regard.  The dead waste is absorbed by the healthy tissue and the market becomes stronger.  What made the current rounds of mergers bad was that there are government sponsored barriers to entry in just about every economic market in this country.  Heck the minimum wage law is a barrier that most would-be small businesses can't handle, so they either go bankrupt or never get started in the first place, so there's jobs lost due to government interference in the job market.

      Socialism and National Socialism, economically, are very similar.  One promotes the rights of the "workers" over everyone else the other promotes the rights of "captains of industry" over everyone else.  Both are wrong.  Rather than letting the markets work, they're trying to force the outcome of the market.  You can get away with it for a while, but only for a while.  We got away with it for about 25 years, now it's time to pay the piper.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree.  I think you're misconstruing cause and effect of the last few decades.  I think supply-side economics... creating goods nobody wants or needs instead of letting demand drive the market, is what created this mess.  That and political corruption in which the government feeds taxpayer money to their cronies for a kickback.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Actually you agree with me.  If you look at corruption in the socialist and national socialist regimes, you see it runs rampant.  When you owe your livelihood to the local political hack, you learn to grease the wheels.  Otherwise you could see your life ruined by the whim of some civil servant.  Where's the justice in that?

          1. 0
            Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I don't necessarily disagree with you. hehe. I told you I was being playful today.  Oddly, this is how I play.  yikes

            1. ledefensetech profile image80
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And I thank you, it's gone a long way to breaking me out of this funk I find myself in.  My fiance likes to do the same thing.  She'll say something she knows will get my goat, just so I'll start ranting and raving.  I'd like to report that I've cut back on the polemics, but she can still get me going from time to time.  lol

              1. 0
                Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                go her!  she sounds great.  you'd better hang on to her. smile

  31. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    well you don't with debt!!!

    you create a system which allows earners to both spend and save...  remember the ford thing?  'paying the highest wages possible'  not the lowest.

    and no real old style capialist thought the market could totally replace the workforce.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A free labor market does just that.  Every businessperson wants the best workers he or she can find.  That's what drives wages up.  Less successful businesses tend to follow what successful businesses do.  That's why when Ford raised the wages of its workers, the rest of the industry followed.  Less known was his demotion of people and reduction in pay due to the changing of the market.  When he went from the Model T to the Model A for instance.  People, didn't at first make as much, but when sales took off, production numbers took off.  Since there was more production, wages rose. 

      I don't get your last statement.  The workforce itself is a market.  If you have skills that are in demand, you can charge more for your labor.  If you have common skills, you won't get paid as much for your labor.  If you want to earn more, you have to make your labor more valuable.  The good news is that in this country, it's pretty easy to do that.  People go to school all the time to learn new and improve old skills.  That's how you make more money, not try to force your company to pay you more, otherwise you'll stop working.  That's barbaric.

  32. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    ok, come with me here into a future....

    a future so technologically advanced it only takes 1/10 of the population to produce everything needed by that total population.

    only 1/10th of the workforce is employed though and at some mimimum wage.

    who is going to buy the goods?  what happens to the other 90% of the population?  do you really think they are just going to sit on the curb and die off because the market told them so?

    REVOLUTION.

    we may be entering this future already.  a fair solution is to keep people working and at a fair wage anyway.  or do you have a better solution?

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're doing a straight line assumption into the future.  In the 1970's people thought the world's population would increase until the future looked like Soylent Green.  What people didn't notice at the time was that industrial nations were actually losing population.  Population was increasing in agricultural nations, true, but that was because the form of agriculture they perform is very labor intensive.  Hence the rising population.  As these countries industrialize, they too will see population decrees.  The so-called futurists of the 1970's were wrong.

      Now even if we create a society that does 10 times the work that we do today, that capacity will go somewhere.  Where?  Now that is a question.  I'm not sure, but it will have to go somewhere.  For certain people will have much more leisure time than they do today.  It's not leisure time that causes revolutions, though.  Can you think of one revolution in history started where people are bored?  I can't.  People revolt when they can no longer afford to feed themselves, live in homes and clothe themselves.  That is when they revolt and only then.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        actually poor people don't start revolutions.  the dying middle class does.  poor people are used to being poor, even Jesus said the poor will be with us always.  but the middle class has been used to a sense of entitlement.  when they start losing ground and have to live like the poor schlubs they hold themselves better than... look out.

        1. ledefensetech profile image80
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The middle class is a relatively new phenomenon.  I've been reading up on the French Revolution lately and one thing I noticed about the middle class of the time was that they wanted the same rights and privileges as the nobility.  So yes they started the Revolution, but it was the mass of the poor that turned it into a bloodbath.  That's the great danger of inciting any revolution, that the masses will just start killing.  It didn't happen during our Revolution because we didn't have the masses of idle poor that France did.  We had a frontier that people could tame and build a life for themselves.  In fact our revolution was started because the British were making it harder and harder for people to build a life for themselves.  The halt of westward expansion was as just a great irritant as the tea act, stamp act and taxes in general.

          What I fear is that we no longer have a frontier and our leaders are making it harder and harder to build a life for ourselves.

  33. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    yeah, socialism is corrupt.  sue meh.  :p

    so is capitalism.  you can't beat greed.  this is a god thing.  too many bad human beings on the earth but maybe it was foretold these days would come.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Capitalism can only courrupt when the government takes a hand in the economy, then capitalism is no longer capitalism but corporatism.  Strange that you feel so for the common person and yet can be so blase about corruption.

      1. 0
        Iðunnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'll do corruption another day.  I don't multi-task well.  lol

  34. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    we will have that mass of idle poor this time.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That why I'm eying a piece of howling wilderness, or at least a close approximation thereof.

  35. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    I'm smart enough to be somewhere next door.

    IF a revolution of any magnitude starts in this country, it's going to be a bloodbath.  There are a lot of weird groups hanging out in the woodwork just itching to come out.  You have world socialists, religious cults but mostly you have racist survivalists.  When it hits the fan, all these groups are going to emerge and everyone will just be killing everyone.

    It seems like it would just be easier to pay people a fair wage, but what do I know?  heh.

    Family over and I have to cut and run as the GOP likes to say.  I shall return though, eventually.

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually I think once it all starts to come apart, you'll start to see the emergence of old patterns emerge.  At least in the small towns and rural areas.  By and large, farmers are conservative folk, so things will return to normal there quickest, I think.  Cities?  Well New Orleans after Katrina comes to mind.  It's a shame, I'll miss the summer concerts in that evenings at Wash U in St. Louis, but I won't go near the place till the craziness ends.

  36. Research Analyst profile image77
    Research Analystposted 7 years ago

    I think that the fluctuation in oil that consumers see has nothing to do with shortage or even higher prices it has more to do with economical political resources.

  37. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    The reason is traders reading this thread. As they read Idunn's post prices go up, LDT's - down. lol

    1. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It would be nice to think that I had that sort of power.  Of course then I'd probably make a hash of things.  tongue

  38. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    bgamall will outlaw you short selling tongue

  39. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Awesome, then the next crash would be even bigger, because there'd be even less warning that the bubble was going to pop.

  40. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    He'll blame it on you anyway wink

  41. ledefensetech profile image80
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Yeah well, if I had a penny for every time I was blamed for stuff, well I wouldn't be here; I'd be sipping fruity drinks on a tropical island somewhere.  tongue

  42. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    LOL true dat, and would have been sipping aside smile

  43. someonewhoknows profile image28
    someonewhoknowsposted 7 years ago

    I think political as well as economic pressure is keeping oil and gas prices down right now.

    I see prices going up again,unless new supplies come to light in the global market.China has made deals with South America,and a few other countries for expected oil reserves in those countries.As long as Europe can get enough oil for it's needs as well as Russia prices should stablize Otherwise were in for another push for alternatives that are cheaper.

    There are power brokers as in energy brokers who are trying to provide jobs while at the same time increasing the demand for natural gas which will ultimately raise the price of natural gas. What they are doing is getting the natural gas consumers to agree to a certain price for a fixed period of time and after that time they can really hit you with an added cost which can increase your total cost by at least 50 percent more than you were paying before the fixed rate they hook you with in the beginning. My term for it is scam.

  44. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    MIsha.  come credit me with predicting oil's drop this week.  ha big_smile

    Oil falls for sixth day towards $62 on U.S. inventory builds
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090708/bs_ … arkets_oil

    Admit I'm good.  smile

  45. Misha profile image75
    Mishaposted 7 years ago

    Sure you are smile

    But tell me, you just read this http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/15923?page=8#post224845

    I won't tell anybody wink

  46. 0
    Iðunnposted 7 years ago

    no, I missed that thread, before I came back I think, but good on you!

    anyway, you know how I love to be right about the market.  hehe

    I can't tell about tomorrow until asia news starts filtering in and I doubt I'll stay up that late tonight.  predicting the dow is a lonely insomniac job.  lol.

 
working