Ford Focus Hated. Who did not see this coming?

[arrow]

The economy collapsed which caused a worldwide recession which caused prices to go down. As the economy has rebounded prices did the same. If you want to blame the government then President Bush caused the collapse and President Obama is responsible for the recovery. Your call.

you're kidding right?

 

[Ductape]

"The Market". Oil prices reflect both supply and demand but also things like fear of Iran shutting the Straits of Hormuz. Changes in the oil market about ?20 years ago allowed speculators to influence pricing as well. I doubt seriously that either Bush or Obama or any other US President in history has had much direct leverage on oil prices.

"What started it all were very low oil prices, precipitated by Ronald Reagan in the mid 1980痴 by persuading Saudi Arabia to flood the market. This caused the internal fractures of the Soviet Union, whose economy was then entirely dependent on oil and gas for any hard currency, to crash."

oil prices, Ronald Reagan, pax americana, soviet union, free market, freedom, BP, british petroleum - HUMAN EVENTS

 

[SPYDERLK]

The economy collapsed which caused a worldwide recession which caused prices to go down. As the economy has rebounded prices did the same. If you want to blame the government then President Bush caused the collapse and President Obama is responsible for the recovery. Your call.

you're kidding right?

Nope.

 

[arrow]

. If you want to blame the government then President Bush caused the collapse and President Obama is responsible for the recovery. Your call.

This part has to be the tongue in cheek?

 

[IslandTractor]

I'd like to believe that. There has been so much collusion with corporate America as a result of what president will benefit corporate titans the most and then giant sums of money are given under the super pac namesakes to get that guy elected that it becomes hard to swallow. If the lowering or raising of gas prices gets timed with elections, I get suspicious. Also, the federal government wins big when gas prices are high as tax dollars are increased substantially and with all our expenditures with our latest overseas conflicts, I cold see how something like that might be appreciated by those in charge. Now multiply that campaign contribution scenario by the members of our senate and congress and is where I get to feeling we are the puppets on their strings.

Too many people would have access to any devious Federal plan for it to remain secret. Too many watchdogs both inside and outside of the beltway for anyone to secretly manipulate oil prices directly (though VP Cheney and his secret meetings certainly add to the intrigue). Now if you are talking about individual politicians, I agree, but they just count for a vote a piece and would work via the Congress rather than Executive branch.

 

[EddieWalker]

"The Market". Oil prices reflect both supply and demand but also things like fear of Iran shutting the Straits of Hormuz. Changes in the oil market about ?20 years ago allowed speculators to influence pricing as well. I doubt seriously that either Bush or Obama or any other US President in history has had much direct leverage on oil prices.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that by limiting US production of oil on the world market, we are not affectly the price of oil? And even though we have more oil then all of the Middle East, if our government allowed that oil to be drilled, that would not have an affect on the world price of oil?

Supply and demand means that you pay more when something that is wanted is in limited supply. Since there is no shortage of oil, and the world economy is down, then either the available supply is also down, or there is some fear of it's ability to be supplied.

There is no shortage, but there is a fear of supply due to conflict in the Middle East. (Iran)

By opening up the US to drilling, there will be more supply available. It doesn't have to actualy be there, but since the price of oil is bought on speculation, those who invest their money will not pay as much when they know that more oil is in the process of becoming available.

Supply and Demand

Eddie

 

[EddieWalker]

Who and where is there a recovery? Unemployment is still worse then when Bush left office, and that's after Obama changed the rules to get the numbers to look better with more people being out of work.

Car sales, Home sales, and retail sales are all down. Where is the recovery that caused the price of oil to decline?

I don't get this at all.

Eddie

 

[arrow]

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that by limiting US production of oil on the world market, we are not affectly the price of oil? And even though we have more oil then all of the Middle East, if our government allowed that oil to be drilled, that would not have an affect on the world price of oil?

Supply and demand means that you pay more when something that is wanted is in limited supply. Since there is no shortage of oil, and the world economy is down, then either the available supply is also down, or there is some fear of it's ability to be supplied.

There is no shortage, but there is a fear of supply due to conflict in the Middle East. (Iran)

By opening up the US to drilling, there will be more supply available. It doesn't have to actualy be there, but since the price of oil is bought on speculation, those who invest their money will not pay as much when they know that more oil is in the process of becoming available.

Supply and Demand

Eddie

I think it also depends Eddie on the market target area for this oil. There indeed may be a reserve for the next 100 years or more but if the oil companies have a market for $4 gallon gas as opposed to $2.50 per gallon, I would think they would lean toward the higher priced markets as their selling point. Unless of course some law is passed that states all oil drilled in the USA stays in the USA. (Tee Hee)

 

[arrow]

Too many people would have access to any devious Federal plan for it to remain secret. Too many watchdogs both inside and outside of the beltway for anyone to secretly manipulate oil prices directly (though VP Cheney and his secret meetings certainly add to the intrigue). Now if you are talking about individual politicians, I agree, but they just count for a vote a piece and would work via the Congress rather than Executive branch.

The trouble here Island is the definition of "devious". To wit: When GM and presidents Truman and Eisenhower came to an agreement for the National HWY system back in the late 40's and early 50's, every local trolley track was ripped out of cities and towns across the nation by 1955. GM wanted to sell Chevrolets. Could this be considered collusion if a corporation was about to benefit in unheard of ways? Now some might consider this devious and others may have called it a transportation revelation marking the American public as the most independent and free people in the world. Depends on how one couches something but rest assured, GM had an inside tract to what was happening as far as governmental decisions relating to this because their stake was just too big. That slogan "what's good for GM is good for America" was not just about job creation. Heck, they might have been the influence as opposed to the some hwy corridors being built for "our national safety" Tricky stuff to term "devious" or not. Genius in its marketing but devious in the way mass transit was virtually eliminated in this country.

 

[IslandTractor]

The trouble here Island is the definition of "devious". To wit: When GM and presidents Truman and Eisenhower came to an agreement for the National HWY system back in the late 40's and early 50's, every local trolley track was ripped out of cities and towns across the nation by 1955. GM wanted to sell Chevrolets. Could this be considered collusion if a corporation was about to benefit in unheard of ways? Now some might consider this devious and others may have called it a transportation revelation marking the American public as the most independent and free people in the world. Depends on how one couches something but rest assured, GM had an inside tract to what was happening as far as governmental decisions relating to this because their stake was just too big. That slogan "what's good for GM is good for America" was not just about job creation. Heck, they might have been the influence as opposed to the some hwy corridors being built for "our national safety" Tricky stuff to term "devious" or not. Genius in its marketing but devious in the way mass transit was virtually eliminated in this country.

I understand your point but think that in the era of 24 hour news cycles and investigative journalism (neither present during the 1950's) it would be hard to keep that sort of collusion out of the public eye. Also, while I don't doubt it was in GM's interest to foster cars rather than mass transit, they really did not rip up all the trolley tracks (Boston, NYC, Philly, Chicago, SF etc etc never did). I don't doubt that smaller towns ripped up the trolley tracks but wonder how much of that was the local economy and local tax cost of extending those lines into the new suburbs. No doubt there was an absence of any national policy to keep or develop mass transit solutions during that time however. I'd personally attribute it less to shenanigans by GM and more to just the post WWII boom generation and their desires. Easy to understand a desire for an individual vehicle over mass transit so long as you don't calculate the long term costs.