While we are bickering, oil just hit $90 a barrell, the dollar collapsing, inflation increasing

[Herman Munster]

But of course arguing over three front-runners whose positions are pretty much the same and any differences irrelevent as nothing they propose now will get enacted in the form they want because they will have to negotiate with congress....is more fun of course.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071018/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices;_ylt=AruHFnuAVqfG6j2nA3x8eKSs0NUE

NEW YORK - Oil prices surpassed $90 a barrel for the first time Thursday as the falling dollar drew new foreign investors and speculators to dollar-denominated energy futures.

Light, sweet crude for November delivery hit $90.02 in electronic trading Thursday evening before returning to around $89.60. Earlier, prices had risen $2.07 to settle at a record $89.47 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

While oil prices have risen sharply in dollar terms in recent days, the steadily weakening dollar means oil futures are seen as a bargain overseas. Data released in recent weeks shows speculative buying of oil futures is on the rise. Buying by foreign investors sends prices up, which draws more speculators into the market.

"It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Brad Samples, commodities analyst at Summit Energy Services Inc. in Louisville, Ky.

Many analysts feel that the underlying fundamentals of supply and demand do not support oil prices of $90 a barrel. On Wednesday, the Energy Department reported that oil and gasoline supplies rose more than expected last week, countering suggestions that supplies are tight.

[TSIAS]

1. Classic HRC defense

Make us believe there is absolutely no difference between HRC, Obama, or Edwards.

[uppityperson]

3. shhhh, not supposed to bicker since they are the same and there are bigger problems to worry about.

Of course, what each of those 3 might do about those problems may differ, and what cooperation they get from congress might differ, but we need to sing Kum Bah Yah and bicker about the bigger issues, I guess. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

25. Is there?

I haven't seen much difference between the three at all.

I don't have a candidate, sadly, because I think the majority of them are corporate butt kissers - and the one who isn't probably can't win because he's NOT a corporate butt kisser. :(

[rucky]

2. I can't believe we dropped the ball on that one.

I'll get on the horn with OPEC and clear this one right up.

[CK_John]

4. And no one noticed they held the pump price the same as it was at $70per bar. n/t

[Klukie]

19. I noticed....

and I don't get it.

[Semper_FiFi]

5. Real estate market is in a slump and about to get worse...

All of these things have come to pass because we have a jackass in the oval office who is more interested in the "war on terra" than he is on issues that concern the average American.

You are correct, it is easy to focus on the bigger picture when it's a lot more fun to spar over the Democratic nominee.

Kick and recommend.

[nightrider767]

7. I disagree!!!

OK,, maybe not completely. But the jackass in office would be nothing without a lot of VERY greedy people in this country who are eating us from the inside, like termites.

Greed and corruption are not the result of Bush.

Bush is a result of greed and corruption.

[nightrider767]

6. Thanks, Great Point

Herman's right. The three leadings candidates are alike and will deliver similar results.

The dollar tanking against the Euro and the price of oil spiking are huge issues that might have a profound affect on us in a fairly short time frame.

Remember, if the dollar really really tanks, it's end game for us. One of the things that the article states causes the price of oil to go up, is the lack of buying power, or confidence in the dollar. Oil is "still" traded in dollars.

Remember that unlike unemployment figures, deficit spending or rates of inflation, the value of the dollar is one economic measure that is very hard for them to fake.

With the current war spending and poor fiscal policy, you may think it's just bad policy. But make no mistake about it, if the dollar dies.....

[depakid]

16. errrr, as an ardent NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO supporter

Hillary would only make the current account deficit that much worse- and of course, Bill (along with Reagan, Bush I and II, appointed Greenspan).

So, I don't see how ANYONE could argue that Hillary would help prop up the dollar....

[paulk]

21. except that she voted against CAFTA

and has clearly said that NAFTA needs to be fixed....

Why don't you try for some truth every now and then? When you bash candidates from a position of such obvious ignorance, you not only don't hurt them, you end up making yourself look foolish.

[depakid]

29. Sometimes, you have to look behind the bare vote at the broader policy implications

That is- if you're not a shallow thinker.

From her statement:

"When DR-CAFTA negotiations began, I was eager to support an agreement."

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=240183

My post (and what it portends for the dollar) stand, and if you knew anything about trade and monetary policy you'd realize this.

Considering what's likely to happen over the course of the next several years, it might be wise to learn about these matters, rather than waste time with silly aspersions.

[paulk]

30. actually, I think it's more along the lines of - no matter what she

does or says - there are people who will find fault with it or twist it to fit into their narrow view of things.

[depakid]

32. Why is it so difficult for some to accept

that the Clintons support, have adhered and will continue to adhere to failed models of "globalization" and expansive monetary policy?

The evidence and statements are clear as day to anyone who bothers to do a little analysis (or who has a look at who they surround themselves with and take money from).

[paulk]

33. yeah, the Clinton years sure sucked for the economy...

oh, wait... they didn't.

Now you're going to tell me that the Clinton years are responsible for the crappy economy under Bush, right?

Of course, I probably haven't studied the subject enough to reach your level of understanding...

[depakid]

34. Again- that's shallow thinking

Deregulation of the financial industry- and lax SEC enforcement led to many of the corporate abuses (thin Enron, Worldcom et al) that cost ordinary people plenty. The tech crash with its subsequent recession (not to mention the so called "energy crisis") also began on the Clinton's watch and were as much a result of his policies as the "irrational exuberance" was.

Shortsighted- and, like the Telecommunications Bill- known by many of us at the time to be be harbingers of what we've seen come to pass over the past 7 years.

You're right though- seems to me you may need to have a look back at those policies and consequences.

Hint: There's a reason why so many progressives were disaffected in 2000.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. If people stop bickering, will Oil drop to $50?

[partylessinOhio]

9. We needed to make friends NOT ENEMIES with those that have the oil.

Bush/Cheney/Pelosi/Reid have all got to go.

We who are on fixed low incomes are thoroughly screwed. Our government doesn't care about us. I wished I had never lived to see these days. I hesitate to think about how much worse it is going to be.

[CK_John]

10. The only growth industry I see is building rickshaws.n/t

[nightrider767]

13. I"d stock up on bottles of water,

because when the dollar falls, that will be our new currency.

And as for rickshaws, that may actually be a good idea. I for one could stand to lose a couple of pounds..

Rickshaw ride anyone?

[CK_John]

23. Bottles of the gas used for welding would be more useful. n/t

[rasputin1952]

11. I was talking to one of the instructors at my local College...

and for quite some time, it has been figured that when oil hits $100 a barrel, it's all over. Markets will collapse all over the world, shortages will be the norm, as military entities worldwide get stockpiles and the citizens be damned. Wealthier nations will go bust, and the poorer nations will just get far worse.

$100 barrel oil is what was called, and in just a month or so, we'll find out.

[nightrider767]

15. I think it'll hit a hundred plus and we'll still make it.

Sure the economy will take a hit. But I don't see any reason why it would sink us. $100 is really an arbitrary number.

But I certainly agree it will not be a good thing.

Maybe for the best though. Let's face it, this country will not wean itself of the oil nipple till disaster strikes. And I have no doubt in my mind we can come up with an alternative fuel for our cars.

We should have started for real ten years ago.

[rasputin1952]

17. While the $100 is an arbitrary #, it has been studied out with he

realization that that virtually everything in this worldwide financial scenario is tied to oil as the major source of power.

With each increase in a barrel of oil, we see similar increases in everything else, basically because transportation costs rise. Look at the cost of a gallon of milk, a dozen eggs and a loaf of bread, the impact is there, and in many other ways as well. It goes far beyond $100 to fill up your vehicle. People might drive less, but the transportation costs rise exponentially. Here in Nebraska, the generation of electricity is mostly coal fired, getting coal to the plants costs a lot now, as the transportation of coal rises, so do electrical rates. Just extracting the coal becomes more expensive; getting the miners to the job becomes more expensive; getting coffee to start heir day becomes more expensive. As expense rises, "sacrifices" are made, there are only so many things that can be "sacrificed", before collapse becomes imminent.

It has been figured that at $100 a barrel, the costs to a nation would far outweigh the somewhat dubious benefit of a worldwide economy based on petroleum.

When you add the reality that each gallon of gas bought or quart of oil used, the ME becomes more willing to toss liquid assets into the laps of terrorists by purchasing grenades and rockets, one can see the very real implications of just what is happening.

Americans are kind of funny when it comes to things like renewables and conservation, they binge, then complain about the hangover later.

We should have been working on problems decades ago, but oil was cheap, so "why bother". Much as I hate to say this, the truth is, through our own hubris, we've placed ourselves in a very precarious position. It did not take too long for those that could, to push us to the precipice.

We'll come out of this eventually, but it is going to take some serious changes.

[CK_John]

22. The other reality is we take the oil, one well head at a time. n/t

[rasputin1952]

26. With what?

It would take a coalition of forces, many of whom would side with the current owners of the property.

Alliances wold fall apart as soon as the bickering began about who would get what, if there were any alliances from the beginning. China, Russia, India, Japan, The UK and the rest of Europe, would demand "their fair share"; the view of us being gluttonous would extrapolate perhaps 10x. Really, this is a mixture for disaster.

We don't have the forces to take anything as a nation. We have just about zero credibility with the rest of the world. Every other nation has their own POV and priorities on how to get petroleum.Just how we could "take" it is beyond me and most others.

At the turn of the 19th Century, it was the Dole company that pressured the government to maintain sugar resources, so the Marines were went to the Caribbean to and elsewhere. American blood was spilled keep profits up. It has happened again, but with a far more strategic commodity. Our failure is that we did not look ahead into the future, nor did we learn from past mistakes. At this point, we are but one relatively small step from disaster economically. We did not take the time, nor expend the energy to figure out better ways to meet some of our most basic needs.

Can we recover and do something that will place us in a far better position, yes. There is the question of whether we are willing to move forward in technology and conservation. We could take the lead, but it will take a change of mindset, something not easily accomplished.

[nightrider767]

28. CK

I'd recommend looking more into the business of oil if I was in your shoes. Not only does it have a huge affect on our daily lives and is incredibly interesting, but it's also so misunderstood.

The US government taking over the Iraqi well would not be as good as you might think. For one, in this world economy, we'd never get away with it. Also consider, when the US government owns oil assets, it's required by law to sell that oil at market price. So all the oil that's pumped out of Alaska, if oil is being sold at $110 a barrel, that oil will sell at market price. So consumers don't have a cheap source of domestic oil to fall back on.

As for Iraq, find out what's going. The US is trying to bamboozle the Iraqi oil as we speak for the benefit of US and British oil companies.

But what you said could actually be done in a way. For those US companies who will be getting the worlds sweetest deal on contracts, they ought to pay a hefty tax on those profits to help subsidize the war. As it stands now, for every ten dollars they invest, they'll get $100 back...

[nightrider767]

27. Thanks For The Thoughtful Response

My personal theory is that this country will not do anything about it until the economy collapses. Think about it, how sad is that!?! It is so frustrating. Can you imagine if the government would have taken the trillion dollars we blew on the Iraq adventure and instead would have invested that money in a renewable energy technology to power our cars?

Not only would we have completely changed the balance of world powers and taken oil out of the equation, but we would have developed and new technology that would have helped our economy in a real way.

And lastly, as you eluded to. Every time you fill up that big SUV, you actually are sponsoring terrorism.

But ya won't hear the Bushniks talking about that.......

[Catherine Vincent]

12. ...and Patrick J. Fitzgerald is geting married!

:cry:

[hatrack]

14. "Inflation"? What is this "inflation" you speak of!

The Shiny Happy Television People inform me that there is NO SUCH problem in Happy United 'Murca!

Are you one of those Freedom Haters?

:evilgrin:

[sniffa]

18. nice throw away Line - "basicaLLy the same"

if that makes hiLLary supporters feeL safer....

[DemNoir]

20. Yes and...

The leading Demoratic candidate for president has the same Fascist leanings as your current President. Talk about a bad day!

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. What are the Republickers doing about this?

For all that the Democrats have a majority in both houses, is has been obvious since the new Congress opened that the Republickers still have absolute control. Just a few years ago, they got their panties in a giant bunch over the possibility that oil would hit $40 a barrel and blamed President Clinton in no uncertain terms. So today they are saying...?

[Lerkfish]

31. and dozens more dead Iraqis, and several of our own brave troops dead, dozens

more maimed and permanently disabled.

what's your point?