Oil Prices: Speculation or supply and demand?

[Saras]

Speculation is demand now, supply later, or, in case of shorting, supply no, demand later. So how is speculation NOT supply and demand?

[rah]

Both but mostly demand. China, India

[Whoha]

Speculation as well as supply and demand.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Did you even read the thread?

Yes, and I'm saying the blaming of speculators is garbage. However, I'll be glad to address your points.

Trying to reduce individual drivers by further subsidizing public transportation is a farce, and trying to force them into submission by excessive taxation seems like something that King George (George III, not George Bush) would do.

If you think you're going to tax "clean" energy into becoming, you're sadly mistaken. First of all, it's not a solution to punish people into using nuclear power (of which the leftists oppose) or hydroelectric power, whose benefits are highly overstated (and also opposed by leftists.)

Second, such measures would cripple the U.S. economy. Pay very close attention when I say "cripple," because there is no U.S. economy without cheap and efficient energy.

Also, Amtrak is one of the biggest wastes of money in the federal budget. If we're going to do away with jet airplanes and cars to replace them with trains, why don't we replace cars with horse and buggies? Horses don't pollute*, they're slower, and they're "sustainable."

* Actually, they do.

[Julian Delphiki]

+ some subsidies which are affecting to demand.

[Imran Siddiqui]

trying to force them into submission by excessive taxation seems like something that King George (George III, not George Bush) would do

Or, rather, intelligent policy goals. Kind of like the taxes on cigarettes.

people into using nuclear power (of which the leftists oppose)

Like France?

Second, such measures would cripple the U.S. economy. Pay very close attention when I say "cripple," because there is no U.S. economy without cheap and efficient energy.

Bull****. While we may be heading into recession due to the housing bubble, the US economy is hardly 'crippled' because of higher energy prices. It isn't as profitable, but it'll be quite fine. European economies are hardly crippled... these days anything but.

[Felch]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Only if the U3O8 price goes above $200/lb does it make sense to build breeders, but U3O8 costs only $60/lb at moment.

Is U308 a typo here? It seems like it'd be highly unstable, given that 238 is the most common.

U238 for sale in US

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Trade deficits? Nothing is manufactured here anymore. HELLLLLOOOO!

My coworkers at the chemical plant would be rather surprised to hear that.

Specialty chemicals -- products only one or two companies make because they created them and nobody else knows how to yet -- is something the United States is very, very good at.

[pchang]

Originally posted by Felch


Is U308 a typo here? It seems like it'd be highly unstable, given that 238 is the most common.

U238 for sale in US

Uranium Oxide - 3 uraniums and 8 oxygens.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Felch


Is U308 a typo here? It seems like it'd be highly unstable, given that 238 is the most common.

U238 for sale in US

That's not a zero it's an O. As in Uranium Oxide.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Or, rather, intelligent policy goals. Kind of like the taxes on cigarettes.

You mean incessant meddling in people's lives.

Like France?

I'm not talking about France. For whatever reason, the fearmongerers didn't take power there.

Bull****. While we may be heading into recession due to the housing bubble, the US economy is hardly 'crippled' because of higher energy prices.

That's because we still have coal. Coal produces about 50% of our nation's energy needs.

It isn't as profitable, but it'll be quite fine. European economies are hardly crippled... these days anything but.

European countries are also a lot smaller and more dense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
You mean incessant meddling in people's lives.

If you mean making them pay for all their negative externalities they impose upon society which they don't pay for.

I'm not talking about France. For whatever reason, the fearmongerers didn't take power there.

Neither did they hear. We just had cheap fossel fuels so we didn't need to subsidize it (nuclear power costs a lot... which would result in more taxes... something I don't think you'd necessarily like).

That's because we still have coal. Coal produces about 50% of our nation's energy needs.

.... and coal would disappear if we taxed gas more?

European countries are also a lot smaller and more dense.

Fine then, Canada or Australia?


European countries are also a lot smaller and more dense. [/QUOTE]

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui If you mean making them pay for all their negative externalities they impose upon society which they don't pay for.

Which is another problem in itself; they shouldn't be getting state health care to begin with.

Neither did they hear. We just had cheap fossel fuels so we didn't need to subsidize it (nuclear power costs a lot... which would result in more taxes... something I don't think you'd necessarily like).

The capital costs of nuclear power plants are high, but the operating expenses are low enough to justify constructing more nuclear power plants, provided we allow them to be commissioned for at least 50 years.

.... and coal would disappear if we taxed gas more?

No, but the global warming fanatics are out there trying to destroy all of our fossil fuels.

Fine then, Canada or Australia?

Both of those countries consume a lot of energy, often times even more per capita than the U.S.

Plus, the populations of those countries aren't really all that spread out; over 90% of Australia's population lives on 2% of the land and most Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

[Patroklos]

Bull****. While we may be heading into recession due to the housing bubble, the US economy is hardly 'crippled' because of higher energy prices. It isn't as profitable, but it'll be quite fine. European economies are hardly crippled... these days anything but.

Oerdin said 2 dollars a gallon Irman, right now. That is enough to cripple our economy even without the current economic hicup. And the "right now" is important, because we don't have alternatives in place right now for people to switch to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Which is another problem in itself; they shouldn't be getting state health care to begin with.

I'm sure no one else has to pay for the costs of air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels or anything. Your insurance rates aren't higher or anything due to problems caused by pollutants. You don't have to pay for Middle East adventures designed to keep the spigot running (because if there was no oil in the ME, we wouldn't give a crap about the factionalism there like we don't give a crap about Africa).

That's not even bringing in the different views on the duties of society on health care coverage.

The capital costs of nuclear power plants are high, but the operating expenses are low enough to justify constructing more nuclear power plants, provided we allow them to be commissioned for at least 50 years.

Still costs money. Still has to come from tax revenues for subsidies to make it affordable to actually build the damned things.

No, but the global warming fanatics are out there trying to destroy all of our fossil fuels.

Which ones in positions of power? Or are they, trying to wean us off foriegn oil and dirty coal burning and onto alternative fuel?

Both of those countries consume a lot of energy, often times even more per capita than the U.S.

Plus, the populations of those countries aren't really all that spread out; over 90% of Australia's population lives on 2% of the land and most Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

And most Americans live in urban America (79% according to the last census). Similar to Canadians (77%). And while most Canadians live 100 miles of the US border, it still is a far distance from Vancouver to Prince Edward Island, and as you mentioned, its far, far colder in Canada so they consume more energy per capita than the US AND their economy is pretty decent and hardly crippled.