Financial News

[StrangeSox]

We might. We might not. Like I said, at this point I don't think there's an option. I don't think they could draft a bill, get it through all the various committees and then vote on it in under a week. So, blame the GOP or Obama or whoever, but some short-term measure is gonna have to come out of this. I'm a fan of the one that doesn't take another year to or more to figure out.

 

Why does it have to be short-term? It could be what Reid's proposed, or it could be what Boehner's proposed but pushed out to 2013. Or it could be a straight increase to 2013. There's a whole lot of ways that it doesn't have to be short-term.

[bmags]

well, there's nothing that says we have to reign in debt via refusing to pay our bills. We could just raise the debt limit and then make proposals to reduce our deficits.

[StrangeSox]

I also wanted to explicitly point out how you're arguing contradictory positions here. On one hand you're saying that "we don't know" whether it'll be another protracted fight to extend the debt ceiling in 6-8 months. While this is literally true, I see no reason to assume it'll be any easier, though you seem confident it will be.

 

Obama is being "me first" by insisting that this deal go into 2013 so that we avoid this becoming a political issue for the campaign. This is narcissistic on his part, putting his campaign ahead of the country. He should acquiesce to Boehner's plan and allow this to become a political issue for the 2012 Presidential Campaign.

 

How, exactly, will allowing this to become a campaign issue in what is likely to be the most heated election we've had result in anything but a protracted, partisan fight against raising the debt ceiling next year? You cannot simultaneously claim that it is selfish to want to push this out of 2012 and thus minimizing the 2012 political implications while at the same time claiming that the second debt ceiling raise will be the typical easy vote to not destroy the economy.

[Balta1701]

By the way, the FAA shutdown I mentioned last week did happen. Construction has stopped at airports across the country and the government can no longer collect airline taxes.

 

This is of course a great thing, right? An upper class tax cut given directly to subsidize air travel.

 

Except...the airlines uniformly just raised their ticket prices by the amount that is no longer going to taxes.

[StrangeSox]

lol, that's pretty incredible.

[southsider2k5]

You are trying to claim that the entire idea of Keynesian stimulus is a failure and are pointing to the 2009 stimulus as evidence, correct?

 

Here is the biggest problem with the stimulus plan, and the main reason it failed. You can't go on television and be anti-bank, anti-wealth, and anti-business and expect banks, the rich, and business to lead a recovery no matter how much money you throw at the problem. When you are publicly talking in punitive terms, yet bemoaning the lack of creation in this country, you are either clueless or blinded to your agenda. That's why the stimulus failed at a trillion, and would have failed at two, three, or however many hindsight trillion dollars you want to make it. The talk about it needing to be bigger is a complete smokescreen for the real failure of the plan, and that is Obama's complete failure at installing any confidence into this economy. No one is going to hire on a permanent basis right now because everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop. They are waiting for the new taxes, the new regulations, the new punitive measures that you here laced in all of the class warfare going on right now. Because of the nature of this Presidency, everything is looked at as temporary. Because there is no confidence, nothing is permanent. We created a mass of temporary jobs and accomplished nothing really in the long term.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

By the way, the FAA shutdown I mentioned last week did happen. Construction has stopped at airports across the country and the government can no longer collect airline taxes.

 

This is of course a great thing, right? An upper class tax cut given directly to subsidize air travel.

 

Except...the airlines uniformly just raised their ticket prices by the amount that is no longer going to taxes.

 

Just like I said would happen and was laughed at with oil subsidies.

[Balta1701]

Just like I said would happen and was laughed at with oil subsidies.

That we create oil subsidies and then there's no change and the companies pocket the price in either case? Yeah that's the opposite of what you said would happen. You argued that getting rid of a subsidy would lead to a price increase. If this is te example, then we ought to get rid of subsidies and skyrocket taxes because the price won't change.

[Y2HH]

That we create oil subsidies and then there's no change and the companies pocket the price in either case? Yeah that's the opposite of what you said would happen. You argued that getting rid of a subsidy would lead to a price increase. If this is te example, then we ought to get rid of subsidies and skyrocket taxes because the price won't change.

 

The price would change. Whether that be fair or not, the price would change. The speculators themselves would rocket oil upon the end of subsidization just on principal, whether it would or should actually do it or not.

 

Hell, if a oil producer even sneezes these days and it hits the wire, oil goes up 3$.

[Balta1701]

Here is the biggest problem with the stimulus plan, and the main reason it failed. You can't go on television and be anti-bank, anti-wealth, and anti-business and expect banks, the rich, and business to lead a recovery no matter how much money you throw at the problem. When you are publicly talking in punitive terms, yet bemoaning the lack of creation in this country, you are either clueless or blinded to your agenda. That's why the stimulus failed at a trillion, and would have failed at two, three, or however many hindsight trillion dollars you want to make it. The talk about it needing to be bigger is a complete smokescreen for the real failure of the plan, and that is Obama's complete failure at installing any confidence into this economy. No one is going to hire on a permanent basis right now because everyone is waiting for the next shoe to drop. They are waiting for the new taxes, the new regulations, the new punitive measures that you here laced in all of the class warfare going on right now. Because of the nature of this Presidency, everything is looked at as temporary. Because there is no confidence, nothing is permanent. We created a mass of temporary jobs and accomplished nothing really in the long term.

Or waitin for the next bank inflated bubble to pop? Or waiting to see if we default on the safest asset in the world to be annoying? Or the next major war?

 

Naw, stuff like that has no impact on people investing because republicans are doing it. Businesses panic any time democrats do anything. War, financial crisis, completely bullplop accounting, lack of health insurance, cities under water, they have no impact on investment. But being mean to a CEO making $232 million a year? Scandalous!

[Balta1701]

The price would change. Whether that be fair or not, the price would change. The speculators themselves would rocket oil upon the end of subsidization just on principal, whether it would or should actually do it or not.

 

Hell, if a oil producer even sneezes these days and it hits the wire, oil goes up 3$.

Then they ought to go to jail since altering a market like that is illegal. Of course, if you defund the regulator, you can do that.

[southsider2k5]

That we create oil subsidies and then there's no change and the companies pocket the price in either case? Yeah that's the opposite of what you said would happen. You argued that getting rid of a subsidy would lead to a price increase. If this is te example, then we ought to get rid of subsidies and skyrocket taxes because the price won't change.

 

No it isn't at all. I said it wouldn't lead to a decrease, because firms would increase their prices by the amount of the former subsidy.

[southsider2k5]

Then they ought to go to jail since altering a market like that is illegal. Of course, if you defund the regulator, you can do that.

 

Which regulator? There are dozens of them.

[southsider2k5]

Or waitin for the next bank inflated bubble to pop? Or waiting to see if we default on the safest asset in the world to be annoying? Or the next major war?

 

Naw, stuff like that has no impact on people investing because republicans are doing it. Businesses panic any time democrats do anything. War, financial crisis, completely bullplop accounting, lack of health insurance, cities under water, they have no impact on investment. But being mean to a CEO making $232 million a year? Scandalous!

 

Yeah, why would you take CEO's and banks at their word for why they aren't hiring and investing. It has to be a vast right wing conspiracy, not the words of the Democrat in office.

[Y2HH]

Then they ought to go to jail since altering a market like that is illegal. Of course, if you defund the regulator, you can do that.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

Speculation is NOT illegal.

 

They're not "altering" the market, speculators are merely predicting the price of oil would rise due to a subsidy kill. Keep in mind, oil companies do not and cannot set the price of oil, so most of those "altering the market" rules do not apply in this case, since we are talking about a commodity...the market itself sets the price of oil based on various variables, including availability, supply, demand, subsides, cost of transfer, etc. The subsidies are merely one of many factors prince into the cost of refinement.

[Balta1701]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

Speculation is NOT illegal.

 

They're not "altering" the market, speculators are merely predicting the price of oil would rise due to a subsidy kill. Keep in mind, oil companies do not and cannot set the price of oil, so most of those "altering the market" rules do not apply in this case, since we are talking about a commodity...the market itself sets the price of oil based on various variables, including availability, supply, demand, subsides, cost of transfer, etc. The subsidies are merely one of many factors prince into the cost of refinement.

Taking supply off the market because you are mad about a political decision is patently illegal.

[kapkomet]

Taking supply off the market because you are mad about a political decision is patently illegal.

 

 

 

If only.

[southsider2k5]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

Speculation is NOT illegal.

 

They're not "altering" the market, speculators are merely predicting the price of oil would rise due to a subsidy kill. Keep in mind, oil companies do not and cannot set the price of oil, so most of those "altering the market" rules do not apply in this case, since we are talking about a commodity...the market itself sets the price of oil based on various variables, including availability, supply, demand, subsides, cost of transfer, etc. The subsidies are merely one of many factors prince into the cost of refinement.

 

Speculation is only wrong until the President engages in it and fails. Hmm. Maybe he should have asked Hillary about playing the futures, I heard she is pretty good at it.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, why would you take CEO's and banks at their word for why they aren't hiring and investing. It has to be a vast right wing conspiracy, not the words of the Democrat in office.

And they're as clear as can be. They need customers. They care less about taxes and regulation than they did under the great free marketeer, they need customers.

 

[Y2HH]

Taking supply off the market because you are mad about a political decision is patently illegal.

 

Only that's not quite how commodities markets work.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Only that's not quite how commodities markets work.

The CFPC charged people with basically that a couple months back, keeping oil off the market just to push the price up.

[southsider2k5]

The CFPC charged people with basically that a couple months back, keeping oil off the market just to push the price up.

 

The what now?

[Y2HH]

The CFPC charged people with basically that a couple months back, keeping oil off the market just to push the price up.

 

They're not taking oil off the market to push the price up, they're paying more because it's worth more due to the disappearance of the subsidy.

 

It all comes down to supply and demand. Oil speculators know that subsidy exists, whether it's big or small, it exists...so they know it shaves money off the price of oil...if it goes away, they can add that back in at a premium, and it's not remotely illegal to do so.

 

What you are talking about isn't remotely close to what speculation is...and this would be pure speculation.

 

IE, you are completely free and clear to speculate that oil would cost more if that subsidy disappeared. And if enough people speculated that same increase, oil then increases in price.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

They're not taking oil off the market to push the price up, they're paying more because it's worth more due to the disappearance of the subsidy.

 

It all comes down to supply and demand. Oil speculators know that subsidy exists, whether it's big or small, it exists...so they know it shaves money off the price of oil...if it goes away, they can add that back in at a premium, and it's not remotely illegal.

 

What you are talking about isn't remotely close to what speculation is.

 

Bingo. It is the same reason prices haven't come down even with the evil swipefees going down.

[Y2HH]

Bingo. It is the same reason prices haven't come down even with the evil swipefees going down.

 

The saying "buy on the news, sell on the rumor" exists for a very good reason.