President Obama's energy policies result in 5 1/2 year low for oil

[phrodeau]

When I was trying t help Rob out that was the only Google result that sounded helpful. -Until you read it and find it says nothing.

So, in your view then: with "all of the above" he both encouraged and discouraged oil production? Simultaneously?

Which part was your favorite?

The one that leads to lower prices and more consumption and therefore more greenhouse gases...

...or the one that leads to higher prices and lower consumption and therefore less greenhouse gases?

Again: not a trick question, pick one and only one. Both or "all of the above"- not an option.

The one that leads to national energy independence.

BTW, we are currently experiencing lower prices and decreased demand. Huh? How can that fit in your partisan worldview?

 

[Que]

So to recap, since you are probably riding herd on your crack research team trying to find some support, any support for the premise of the thread. First your Chief Economist said:

Does Q-Bert not understand that consumer confidence and economic growth can contribute increased oil production without a policy?

To which I responded:

1) "Consumer confidence" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

2) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "consumer confidence" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

3) "Economic growth" will not fuel energy production to the degree energy production will in sundry ways fuel economic growth. Increased oil production is a large part of what GDP growth we have seen. Nearly all the rest of it can be attributed to the artificial stimulus of the market by the Federal reserve. It isn't housing, It isn't manufacturing that is showing the minor growth we have so far. It is oil, led by such states as North Dakota and Texas. It is circular logic to say that economic growth in the oil sector fueling the economy causes increased demand for fuel in the energy sector and therefore fuels the growth of the oil sector.

4) "Economic growth" might lead to increased demand but it has nothing to do with the ability of the producers to meet that demand. When oil was well over $100 a barrel, clearly demand was not the issue.

5) Increased demand brought on by as you suggest "economic growth" has the opposite affect on price. It would have raised, not lowered the price of oil.

6) Talk about moving the goal posts...even if any of what you suggest is true (and as you can see above- it is exactly backwards)....Rob's premise is that the low cost of oil was not just due to the general environment fostered by unnamed policies of the administration writ large, rather his contention is that it was specifically the <fossil-fuel discouraging> energy policies of the Obama administration that has directly resulted in the low price of oil. Suggesting that it maybe happened "without a policy" is actually in harmony with my position, not Rob's indefensible one.

Thanks for advancing my argument even if you don't have a grasp of the basics to be able to advocate for either point of view.

Then realized you seemed to agree with Disgustipated, your Chief Economist:

I think at some level he understands this, but he doesn't want to jeopardize his budding relationships with his new "bros" Ishmael and AJ, so he can't admit it.

So, I sought further clarification:

I realize you are a dilettante on matters of economics, but the first building block is to understand supply and demand. It is common knowledge that Disgustipated is a "dummy" as he likes to say, but et tu?

Did you read what he wrote, or did you just grasp for any lifeline offered to keep from drowning in your thread?

It is interesting I have been trying to get you to acknowledge for days that your two positions of "restrictive energy policies do not lead to higher fuel prices" and "doing nothing about restrictive energy policies does not lower fuel prices," are not only mutually exclusive, the are both incorrect.

Here you go starting a thread directly and clearly stating the very policy I inferred from your positions that you claimed I was ascribing to you.

You know what isn't ascription? Quoting your premise in the title of the thread word-for word.



You, so far, have not offered one word to support that bold statement.

The year is young. You still have 15 hours this ear to 'splain yourself.

What say you?

 

[Que]

The one that leads to national energy independence.

BTW, we are currently experiencing lower prices and decreased demand. Huh? How can that fit in your partisan worldview?

You approve of using increases in fossil fuel to "achieve energy independence?" I do as well.

I am surprised to hear that is a goal of the Obama Administration and that they wish to achieve it through increases in domestic oil production. Is that correct?

Are they going to release the lands that they curtailed production on?

Last I checked the actual field of Economics is not a "partisan world-view" it is numbers and projections and checking the record historically to see if the reality matched the projection.

Demand is not decreased it is level, but lets say, for the sake of discussion that it was down, perhaps even markedly so.

Lets also assume that I knew nothing other than the givens in your problem as expressed. When demand drops prices also fall. This surprises you?

When demand is level or decreasing and production is increasing prices fall even more. What part of all of that is inconsistent?

I lot of the areas that you seem to take a bit of an interest in such as science and economics require a little grounding in mathematics. You might consider looking into some statistical analysis coursework. It will help in understanding and explaining the graphs you are so fond of.

As far as your queries here. I recommend for a start you Henry Hazlett's excellent "Economics in one easy lesson" which is based on the work of the great Frédéric Bastiat's "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" or "What is Seen and What is Not Seen" (I had to look up the French.)

Hey! I just found where you can read the whole thing for free: http://fee.org/library/detail/economics-in-one-lesson-2

 

[Que]

Well, you and your team of crack petroleum and economic experts as well as your bro-posse have just under 11 hours to support your thesis this year...

So far this is the best I can do to help you out:

Mother Jones.

The author is not a petroleum expert or an economist, he is a "Processor of Peace and World Security" for some New Hampshire college.

He offered the first concrete Obama policy shift on oil that will increase production. Probably. In the future. Estimated to come online in 2018. So though he is ABOUT to let them explore some sea beds whilst scaring some manatee, none of that is the oil that we see in the pipeline...I mean by rail car...driving down prices.

He regurgitated the same White House talking points that Phrodeau did about oil up during the duration of the administration and points them dragging their feet slightly less on 2013 permits then the did in 2012, and finally holding delayed auctions. Sort of the "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife" affirmative defense.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/how-obama-became-oil-president-gas-fracking-drill

I am afraid that if Mother Jones cannot support your assertion, you might have to do what you claim you do when you are wrong which is to man up and admit you are wrong.

"That's a BOLD statement!" -John Travolta as Vincent Vega in "Pulp Fiction."

 

[Que]

I am not sure you are taking your hosting duties on this important topic that you proffered seriously.

I feel like you are just phoning it in. You could at least help Phrodeaux answer those environment or oil quandaries.

So far, Sam and I seem to be carrying your thread for you with 38 posts between us. You have 5. That's Obama-level attention to the task at hand.

Even UD and Phrodeaux have 4 apiece. There posts at least attempted answer the "quarstion:"

What of Obama's energy policies had the intention and more to the point the result in lowering the cost and increasing the availability of oil when his stated and actual policies do the opposite?

I even give Disgustipatified an E for effort for throwing in some economic terms even if he did get the concepts and their effects completely backwards.

Of your 5 posts 4 of them are just dismissive and completely non-responsive in your own thread. The first post sort of outlines your premise but there is no "there" there. No support at all for the assertion. Not even a King-O style C&P to indicate what made you think that President Obama's energy policies had resulted in 5 1/2 year low oil.

Maybe you could start a new thread that is defensible?

Like: "President Obama's energy policies hardly got in the way at all; despite them oil is at a 5 1/2 year low.

Hmm that is kind of long for a thread title.

How about "President Obama's energy policies: Much adieu about nothing."

 

[Busybody]

this thread was in response to my thread where I thanked



Pres Bush for the low energy prices

 

[Que]

this thread was in response to my thread where I thanked



Pres Bush for the low energy prices

Yes, I know. Rob was whining the other day about how he was "not going to play defense on the issue."

Evidently, he did not realize when he went on offense there is absolutely nothing to support the point of view that Obama's energy policies could possibly have had the intention or the effect of increasing production.

It is like Obama taking credit for the rain or the sunshine. "Let me be clear: In my administration plants got watered and buns got tanned!"

Actually didn't he sort of promise to lower the seal levels, make ice cubes and part the red seas in his victory speech?

 

[nakedboater69]

In spite of Obama we have low oil prices he said we can't drill our way out of high prices fuck him we did anyway.

 

[Que]

In spite of Obama we have low oil prices he said we can't drill our way out of high prices. Fuck him; we did anyway.

Well, shit. Sam and I have 40 posts to our congenial hosts paltry five. Rob has zip to say, and you accomplished all that needs to be said in about a tweet's worth of characters.

Well done.

It is kind of a shame that the posters with the best background to get a giggle over Disgustipated and Robs economic analysis have him on ignore and can't enjoy the comic relief.

Perhaps I should point them here.

 

[nakedboater69]

Like Palin said DRILL BABY DRILL.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

Actually didn't he sort of promise to lower the seal levels, make ice cubes and part the red seas in his victory speech?

No he didn't. You're becoming as much a liar as busybody.

 

[Adre]

I see that the meth shipment must have arrived.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

No he didn't. You're becoming as much a liar as busybody.

Link?

Nevermind. Found it.

[The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

My paraphrase was off slightly. Pretty much promised to wrest control of all planetary and geological forces as well as of course regulate solar flares.

At least that is how I read it. I am reading the subtext.

You know like when Obama "hears" the affirmative voices of those that did not go to the polls and vote for his policies that he said were on the ballot. Like that sort of subtext.

 

[domroger]

I see that the meth shipment must have arrived.

I thought as an Arizona resident it was the peyote crop .

 

[Que]

LORD! There's porcine blood all over the fucking walls in this thread...looks like hogs do get slaughtered.

Shhhhh!

Javelina season ended 30 Nov.

 

[Que]

I see that the meth shipment must have arrived.

Repeating Disgusted? That's even less imaginative than snuffling along the trail nose to ass with Rob.

Tell you what, money-bags.

How about a friendly wager. $5,000. We take a sample from me and a sample from Disgustipated. When my blood is 100% clean, you owe me $5000, unless Disgustipated is also clean in which case the bet is a wash.

If my sample is dirty (it isn't) and Disgustipated is clean, I owe you $5,000.

Escrow company of your choice, any state. Certified drug labs. I'll pay for mine, You pay for Disgustipated.

I'll draw the paperwork up as a contest with prize to be awarded from escrow.

You in?

 

[phrodeau]

Repeating Disgusted? That's even less imaginative than snuffling along the trail nose to ass with Rob.

Tell you what, money-bags.

How about a friendly wager. $5,000. We take a sample from me and a sample from Disgustipated. When my blood is 100% clean, you owe me $5000, unless Disgustipated is also clean in which case the bet is a wash.

If my sample is dirty (it isn't) and Disgustipated is clean, I owe you $5,000.

Escrow company of your choice, any state. Certified drug labs. I'll pay for mine, You pay for Disgustipated.

I'll draw the paperwork up as a contest with prize to be awarded from escrow.

You in?

These things always work out so well. Keep them coming.

 

[Disgustipated]

These things always work out so well. Keep them coming.

Is Q-Bert serious? I don't like Lit enough to stay up for days posting here.

 

[Que]

Is Q-Bert serious? I don't like Lit enough to stay up for days posting here.

100% serious, druggie.

At least I assume. Only people I know that talk about drugs as much as you do are druggies.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a druggie if that is what you are. I like some druggies. I don't like you but that is because you are not interesting

So what about it? With you I got a different offer. I drive to California. You can even pretend to be clean we wont test you. I drop dirty $5000, if I'm clean you owe me $5000. If you want to make it $10,000 I need a week maybe two to raise it.

 

[Disgustipated]

100% serious, druggie.

At least I assume. Only people I know that talk about drugs as much as you do are druggies.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a druggie if that is what you are. I like some druggies. I don't like you but that is because you are not interesting

So what about it? With you I got a different offer. I drive to California. You can even pretend to be clean we wont test you. I drop dirty $5000, if I'm clean you owe me $5000. If you want to make it $10,000 I need a week maybe two to raise it.

I only talk about drugs when it comes to you because you spend days and nights posting. I'm fairly certain Meth would be out of your system by the time you got here. I'm not sure what a *dirty $5000* is.

I'm not interesting? Ok, lil q.

 

[Que]

I only talk about drugs when it comes to you because you spend days and nights posting. I'm fairly certain Meth would be out of your system by the time you got here. I'm not sure what a *dirty $5000* is.

I'm not interesting? Ok, lil q.

So thats no...STFU then, druggie.

 

[Disgustipated]

So thats no...STFU then, druggie.

How are going to get here? You gonna use those ChevroLegs?

 

[Que]

How are going to get here? You gonna use those ChevroLegs?

Got a fresh DOHC ZC. Wont even cost much in gas, thanks, Obama!

or I could take the truck, crash in the back if I get sleepy. Not that I ever get sleepy, mind you.

 

[unregistered]