A friend of mine who is well informed on financial and investment matters and I were discussing the present state of our economy. He told me a large segment of those investing in oil futures were banks and other financial institutions, resently dumping them before a dateline for a required report would have to be summited. He then went to predict gas prices would gradually start coming down. He made this prediction three weeks ago.

I am wondering if anyone else around here has heard similar comments.

 

not heard that but around here gas has come down for sure over the last couple weeks

 

going down to prepare for the labor day weekend increase i`m sure .. i`m steadily looking at investing in some sort of fashion in the gas market ..

 

that sounds like insider trading....or something illegal

 

I had heard or read that many of the hedge fund managers were speculating in oil commodity market. And when price dropped to $117 that the bottom would fall out somewhat and oil would fall to $100. Something to do with computer formulas that they all used in trading commodities.

All this does is drop gasoline price to say $3.00-$3.25, then when we start consuming more again demand goes up and therefore price goes up.

Of course it could be a conspriacy by the world powers that be ( or those with most to gain) to take the $4 gasoline off the presidential election debate table that Obama was obviously losing (Mr. Tire Gauge) and therefore help to get Obama elected. Just an idea.

 

Well, it's down now, but I really don't expect it to stay down for long - more like the calm before the storm.

 

I'm not sure slamming Obama is the right thing, actually. McCain will merely represent four more years of GW's failed policies, whereas I do think Obama wants to move America in a new, more progressive direction (one that it must go in to survive in the long haul). Whether you love him or hate him, Bill Clinton made the '90s reasonably prosperous for most Americans. Times were better for most Americans economically then than they are now.

 

But Clinton's plan was to appease everyone in triangulation. Obama's is to appease everyone through redistribution of wealth. If you believe the rich should do more, which I obviously don't, then Obama is your man. I've seen his commercials of late claiming that he'll create 5 million new jobs in these new technologies. I'm really sorry, but Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, never created any jobs. They might have helped by signing legislation that created an envonment for jobs, but again I think jobs are created by small and large business, not by executive order, act of congress, or govenerment mandate. Unless we all become government workers.
Also, new technology energy will never work without capitalism. Socialism does not breed innovation, I'm sorry, but where was Soviet Union in the end when it came to technology? Obama IS socialist. It is beyond a doubt to me.

 

Ask yourself the following question: Is the country better off economically now than it was in 1996? Your answer should determine which way you will vote.

As to being a "Socialist", does anybody understand the true meaning of the term? It's a blanket term that gets bandied about too liberally. No SINGLE system is ideal for every situation.

For example: would you prefer to see your postal system privatized; it is essentially a "socialist" system, after all, since it is run by the government? What about the military? It's a "socialist" system. What about deregulating the airline industry? Taking any government involvement away from that has resulted in standards of competition that have almost brought the industry to its knees, 9|11 and oil prices notwithstanding.

 

I'm not voting for Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, I can only choose between Obama and McCain. Obama is no Clinton. At least Clinton pretended to be a centrist. Obama can't even do that. This is not an election on are you better of now than then or vice versa. This is what gives us a better chance Obama or McCain? Frankly like Richard Pryor in Brewster's Millions, "None of the Above." Would be my choice.

 

Then your path is clear: don't vote.

That's part of the problem with a two-party system, little choice is offered. Unfortunately, it's hard to maintain superpower status with more than two parties.

And I must disagree on the "better off than before" argument. I think the entire thrust of the argument is "what direction should America be going in?", cause the current direction will render it a second rate power within 30 years, not unlike Great Britain after WWII.

 

I really have no problem with two party system. I just wish my party would listen to me. But a fractured multiparty system built on coalitions such as France, Italy, and Britain is a joke. Term limits? Line item veto? A president that will veto earmark bills? I don't know. A constitutional amendment for a balanced budget like many states have? Or a media that is not so clearly in the tank for one party or movement. I haven't really thought of a cure. And I am not convinced the sky is falling just yet. The only thing I do know is that first and foremost a flat tax instead of a tax code that would fill a library. Some restrictions or at least a microscope on lobbying in Washington. And the most novel idea I've ever heard of, no more pork projects, or aforementioned, earmarks. No more tea cup museums, no more bridge to nowhere, and no more spending of highway funds or military budget just because if you don't spend it all this year you'll get less next year approach. Also the problem reaches all the way down to state and city governments. Probably the biggest set of political idiots in this world are the brain trusts sitting on city councils. But those who might actually have talent for it, would never put up with crap that they get.

 

Demand has nothing to do with it. Demand has been down for quite some time now, and gas prices continued to rise. They use supply and demand as an excuse to make money, plain and simple. Personally, I don't know a whole lot about the market, but I don't know why we let some forecasters determine the price of our gas.

 

Actually, to be fair, gas prices have come down over the past two weeks.

 

Yeah, by $.10.

I guess it's time to park a Fusion and take the truck out.

 

Look you want cheaper gas get a truly free market. As long as OPEC exists, oil prices, and therefore gas prices will be artficially high because the marketplace doesn't set price. OPEC pumps oil or not to protect the price it wants. In the past we produced more oil than we do now, so their price tampering measures were not as effective. It's as simple as that. Get off of oil so they can go pound sand and kill each other, or pump more here until we do. I think everyone agrees we have to find a way out. But it will be the marketplace that drives innovation and technology and not government. Edison was not working for government, nor was Bell, Ford, Wrigth brothers, and so on and so on. These men invented and improved upon their products because of the money to be made. It wasn't for the greater good as demanded by the government, it was for the greater good of their wallets and their posterity. And we are all the better for it.

Can you imagine how rich the man/woman would be that invented the power source or means to get us off oil? We'd still use oil for plastics and such, but the demand would be less and therefore prices lower.

One last thing, you can't do away with commodities markets. Oil is a commodity and therefore will always be traded on a market. It has to be bought and sold. The people who pull it out of the ground sell it to the refineries, who then sell it to the stations. This is not always the same company, or even the same country for that matter. Anyway, where you have markets you have speculators, period, you can't have one without the other. You can't decide what people are allowed to purchase oil futures. Also you have to have futures, because that oil company needs to know if its even worth it to go pull that oil out of the ground. Back when it was $25 a barrel just a few years ago, no one in Texas would even bother with a well because it would cost more than that to get it out of the ground. But now people are falling all over themselves to get it out at $114 as of today. Why? Profit. I guess your answer would be to have government get it out of the ground for us? Yeah that's be great, how's that post office and DMV working out for you. Or better yet look at the federal government's books. They get trillions a year and can't even break even. Yeah I want those knuckle heads getting my gas for me!

 

Sorry, my mistake. Oil prices have come down per barrel - that is what I meant to say.

Hasn't effectively trickled down to our level yet, though, you're quite right.

Big surprise.

 

Around here, gas is down about $0.30 a gallon right now.

 

Economics suck.

 

Let's see. Gas around here $3.48 unleaded 89 octane.

Of course we are less than 100 miles from probably most of the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.

I know everyone wants to make this a giant conspiracy. But the law of supply and demand does not fail any test. You can cheat supply and demand with cartels and monopolies and oligopolies, and price collusion, but in the end supply and demand rules out. I think our number one concern should be to agree that we must get off of gasoline in our cars. We must as a society tell those who make our cars, we want alternatives and will pay for them. Then we can use our oil for plastics and other goods it is required in. Our demand for alternative cars will cause corporations to work and meet that demand so that profit can be made.

If we can agree we need something else for energy in our vehicles, then we should say, OK for now we wil drill at home as much as we can, so as not to hurt our economy any further. Now I realize the tenency will be to say, we have oil now and prices have come down, when we start drilling, but we must avoid the temptation to believe everything is OK. We must find that alternative.