zzman -- by reading your posts, i see that you have a reeasonable command of the language.yet you keep asking the same questions over and over.several people are explaining the issue, but it's not sinking in.read my posts from a couple of pages back, and badnews's post of 4-21, 11:56. to a reasonably intelligent person, the basic concepts are not rocket science.as well, one cannot look at the world through the proverbial rose colored glasses.have a good night.
Stupid Oil Speculator's are at it again!
- Thread starter ZZman
- Start date
- Status
zzman -- you're absolutely right."used to be" is the key phrase. "honor and doing what is right" cannot be used in a sentence describing oil speculators.again -- all that they care about is money.period.
That's the New American Prayer: "Money, money, money...and money."
Originally Posted By: badnews
Originally Posted By: Texas Aggie
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Texas Aggie:
So if I am a kid and I want to be an oil speculator later in life I should learn early in life how that works by running my lemonade stand that way.
I start the price at 50 cents a glass. As the day gets hot and more customers show up I raise my price to 75 cents. Why? Because demand went up.......I must raise prices!
My costs didn't change....I just want more profit.
If a price was set and agreed upon it doesn't matter what the dollar does. The price is the price and that was what was agreed upon. You took that chance when you made that deal that one side or the other might come out better.
Who cares if there was or is high demand for oil. The point is are or was there any shortages. Is there a bidding war over that last bit of available oil?.....NO. Everyone could get oil. There were no shortages. The 147.00 a barrel was finanicallly produced not demand/supply produced. The only shortages that might occur would be artifically created by companies holding back hoping to get prices up. But if the price was already set and agreed to there would be no reason to hold back.
Please explain to me Economics 101. Why will there be shortages if price does not go up? If they can sell all they want at the current price and are making a profit why do they have to make even more at the expense of people held hostage by having to buy it.
ZZman:
What you're forgetting in your lemonade example is that you only have a finite supply of lemonade. As the temperature increases, you'll have a higher demand. If you keep the price low, you'll sell out before noon, and profits will be down. Raising the price will slow demand, allowing your supply to keep up with your demand. And my question would be, what's wrong with profit? If you're out in the hot sun, making an effort, shouldn't you be rewarded for that effort? If not, why get out of bed in the morning? You could be playing video games with the kid next door.
Also, what you're saying about setting the agreed upon price is incorrect. People agree on the price of oil millions of times per day in the market, you're referring to fixing the price. That was tried in the '70s and didn't work out too well.
The reason that there were no shortages even with high demand is because the price was not fixed. I'm adding a link to a supply and demand explanation on another website that explains it. Simply put, the optimal price will balance supply and demand. The market allows this to happen daily. Look at the graph in the website, and select a price below the market price. You'll see that a shortage will be created. That's econ 101.
http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/supply-demand/
Bull
we regulated long distance phone charges and now we can call for a nickel or less
Where have you been ?
What political party do you listen to ?
Wake up .
Are you referring to long distance service that was deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act? That's a great example of what a low demand and an almost unlimited supply, along with less regulation will do to prices.
Here are two more great examples. Remember when airlines were deregulated in the '70s? The price of airfare now is close to all time lows even with higher oil prices. Oil was deregulated in the early '80s, and the price of oil bottomed in the late '90s close to $10 a barrel. I won't ask what political party you listen to, I don't care, I'm for the free market, which increases society's wealth. Where have I been? I've tried to educate myself, rather than just saying 'corporations are evil'. Who needs to wake up?
Originally Posted By: Texas Aggie
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Texas Aggie:
So if I am a kid and I want to be an oil speculator later in life I should learn early in life how that works by running my lemonade stand that way.
I start the price at 50 cents a glass. As the day gets hot and more customers show up I raise my price to 75 cents. Why? Because demand went up.......I must raise prices!
My costs didn't change....I just want more profit.
If a price was set and agreed upon it doesn't matter what the dollar does. The price is the price and that was what was agreed upon. You took that chance when you made that deal that one side or the other might come out better.
Who cares if there was or is high demand for oil. The point is are or was there any shortages. Is there a bidding war over that last bit of available oil?.....NO. Everyone could get oil. There were no shortages. The 147.00 a barrel was finanicallly produced not demand/supply produced. The only shortages that might occur would be artifically created by companies holding back hoping to get prices up. But if the price was already set and agreed to there would be no reason to hold back.
Please explain to me Economics 101. Why will there be shortages if price does not go up? If they can sell all they want at the current price and are making a profit why do they have to make even more at the expense of people held hostage by having to buy it.
ZZman:
What you're forgetting in your lemonade example is that you only have a finite supply of lemonade. As the temperature increases, you'll have a higher demand. If you keep the price low, you'll sell out before noon, and profits will be down. Raising the price will slow demand, allowing your supply to keep up with your demand. And my question would be, what's wrong with profit? If you're out in the hot sun, making an effort, shouldn't you be rewarded for that effort? If not, why get out of bed in the morning? You could be playing video games with the kid next door.
Also, what you're saying about setting the agreed upon price is incorrect. People agree on the price of oil millions of times per day in the market, you're referring to fixing the price. That was tried in the '70s and didn't work out too well.
The reason that there were no shortages even with high demand is because the price was not fixed. I'm adding a link to a supply and demand explanation on another website that explains it. Simply put, the optimal price will balance supply and demand. The market allows this to happen daily. Look at the graph in the website, and select a price below the market price. You'll see that a shortage will be created. That's econ 101.
http://www.netmba.com/econ/micro/supply-demand/
Bull
we regulated long distance phone charges and now we can call for a nickel or less
Where have you been ?
What political party do you listen to ?
Wake up .
Are you referring to long distance service that was deregulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act? That's a great example of what a low demand and an almost unlimited supply, along with less regulation will do to prices.
Here are two more great examples. Remember when airlines were deregulated in the '70s? The price of airfare now is close to all time lows even with higher oil prices. Oil was deregulated in the early '80s, and the price of oil bottomed in the late '90s close to $10 a barrel. I won't ask what political party you listen to, I don't care, I'm for the free market, which increases society's wealth. Where have I been? I've tried to educate myself, rather than just saying 'corporations are evil'. Who needs to wake up?
I hate to inform you, but there's no such thing as an infinite supply, it does not exist. Furthermore, the kid is going to have a limited amount of capital to start his business. If he's got $5 to buy cups, lemonade mix, etc., he better sell as much as he can for the best price he can if he wants to make any money. I'm not sure how this fact can elude you. If I were a boss, I'd love to have an employee like you, though. What, you want a raise? We agreed to a salary 20 years ago, that should be good enough. lol.
Anyway, the price of a barrel of oil is agreed upon each time someone makes a purchase, otherwise it wouldn't happen. No one is holding a gun to anybody's head to buy a barrel of oil or a gallon of gas. We're simply demanding it, and a lot of us seem to want all the gas we want while forcing someone else to sell it at what we consider 'fair'. I don't understand why this is difficult. Factors change everyday. A hurricane hits the coast, Iran threatens us with nukes, a huge oil discovery is made, it's announced that people are driving a lot less. There are many things that can cause a price swing.
Quote:
If the companies want to make money they pump oil and sell it. If the price was set they would have no reason not too because they could not raise prices by artifically slowing supply. But why would they if they didn't have to worry about the price going down either?
I don't understand your logic. The price to pump oil out of the ground changes. Inflation hits, a well dries up, the regulatory environment changes, lots of things can affect the price to get to the oil. Let's say you fix the price of oil, and the cost to get it out of the ground in the US rises above the set price. What do you think is going to happen? Production will stop, and they'll move on to the more profitable areas. Eventually, no one will sell it to us, because they'll be losing money.
Quote:
If oil was based purely on supply and demand and not other factors then I might agree it is working as it should.
As long as the price of oil is not fixed, the price is based on supply and demand. What happens is that when the supply curve or demand curve shifts, the price changes. When the price changes, the demand (or supply depending on what changed) will change in order to meet the shift in supply. For example, let's say that a discovery is made that will increase gas mileage by 10% on all cars almost overnight. Assuming people don't drive 10% more due to better mileage, the price will decrease along with the supply. Other forces will alter costs, supply, or demand, but economics will allow all of these forces to balance if we'll let the free market work.
Anyway, the price of a barrel of oil is agreed upon each time someone makes a purchase, otherwise it wouldn't happen. No one is holding a gun to anybody's head to buy a barrel of oil or a gallon of gas. We're simply demanding it, and a lot of us seem to want all the gas we want while forcing someone else to sell it at what we consider 'fair'. I don't understand why this is difficult. Factors change everyday. A hurricane hits the coast, Iran threatens us with nukes, a huge oil discovery is made, it's announced that people are driving a lot less. There are many things that can cause a price swing.
Quote:
If the companies want to make money they pump oil and sell it. If the price was set they would have no reason not too because they could not raise prices by artifically slowing supply. But why would they if they didn't have to worry about the price going down either?
I don't understand your logic. The price to pump oil out of the ground changes. Inflation hits, a well dries up, the regulatory environment changes, lots of things can affect the price to get to the oil. Let's say you fix the price of oil, and the cost to get it out of the ground in the US rises above the set price. What do you think is going to happen? Production will stop, and they'll move on to the more profitable areas. Eventually, no one will sell it to us, because they'll be losing money.
Quote:
If oil was based purely on supply and demand and not other factors then I might agree it is working as it should.
As long as the price of oil is not fixed, the price is based on supply and demand. What happens is that when the supply curve or demand curve shifts, the price changes. When the price changes, the demand (or supply depending on what changed) will change in order to meet the shift in supply. For example, let's say that a discovery is made that will increase gas mileage by 10% on all cars almost overnight. Assuming people don't drive 10% more due to better mileage, the price will decrease along with the supply. Other forces will alter costs, supply, or demand, but economics will allow all of these forces to balance if we'll let the free market work.
First of all most kids haven't been bit by the greed bug yet so they would be happy making what they made. And he did make money. Maybe not as much as he could have but he made money. Is there some rule that everyone must make as much money as they can?
Your raise issue is wrong. I said the contracts are agreed upon for a year. Then they are renegoiated. Just as if I was an employee my salary could be renegoiated with you every year.
As far as the agreed upon price that is done everyday and how they try and decide that is ridiculous. The factors you speak of rarely cause any issue with the oil supply. Because they "might" affect it people make decisions.
Since the oil companies don't set the price themselves how can inflation, regulations, wells drying up etc affect prices? The investors are doing the buying and making decisions. I don't think most of them have that information. Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
The true supply and demand curve changes multiple times a day?
Once again the free market may allow that. But it is not always free.
Your raise issue is wrong. I said the contracts are agreed upon for a year. Then they are renegoiated. Just as if I was an employee my salary could be renegoiated with you every year.
As far as the agreed upon price that is done everyday and how they try and decide that is ridiculous. The factors you speak of rarely cause any issue with the oil supply. Because they "might" affect it people make decisions.
Since the oil companies don't set the price themselves how can inflation, regulations, wells drying up etc affect prices? The investors are doing the buying and making decisions. I don't think most of them have that information. Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
The true supply and demand curve changes multiple times a day?
Once again the free market may allow that. But it is not always free.
Last edited:
Quote:
First of all most kids haven't been bit by the greed bug yet so they would be happy making what they made. And he did make money. Maybe not as much as he could have but he made money. Is there some rule that everyone must make as much money as they can?
No, you are free to make as little as you want.
Quote:
Your raise issue is wrong. I said the contracts are agreed upon for a year. Then they are renegoiated. Just as if I was an employee my salary could be renegoiated with you every year.
I never saw any mention of one year anywhere. However, it's besides the point. Inflation hits year round. Why not negotiate twice a year, or once every ten years? Anyway, how do you know what's going to happen in a year? Who would have known that September 11th would happen?
Quote:
As far as the agreed upon price that is done everyday and how they try and decide that is ridiculous. The factors you speak of rarely cause any issue with the oil supply. Because they "might" affect it people make decisions.
If you can't understand this very elementary fact, how can we discuss anything else? When I fill up my car, I 'agree' to the price, otherwise, I'd go to the next station. Why is that ridiculous? The factors I speak of definitely affect oil supply and demand, and those are just some factors.
Quote:
Since the oil companies don't set the price themselves how can inflation, regulations, wells drying up etc affect prices? The investors are doing the buying and making decisions. I don't think most of them have that information. Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
Are you being serious? How can inflation affect their prices? The definition of inflation is an increase in prices. When the value of the dollar falls, it takes more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. How do regulations affect prices? It costs money to comply with environmental, health, safety, financial, and other types of regulations. When these regulations increase, the cost of doing business increases. By the way, these investors have a lot of knowledge, more than most of us here.
Quote:
The true supply and demand curve changes multiple times a day?
Huge shifts in supply and demand don't have to change multiple times a day. The market's like a see-saw, prices go up and down every second trying to reach a balance between supply and demand.
Quote:
Once again the free market may allow that. But it is not always free.
So you're saying that since the market isn't free, we should add more regulation to make it less free? Impeccable logic!
First of all most kids haven't been bit by the greed bug yet so they would be happy making what they made. And he did make money. Maybe not as much as he could have but he made money. Is there some rule that everyone must make as much money as they can?
No, you are free to make as little as you want.
Quote:
Your raise issue is wrong. I said the contracts are agreed upon for a year. Then they are renegoiated. Just as if I was an employee my salary could be renegoiated with you every year.
I never saw any mention of one year anywhere. However, it's besides the point. Inflation hits year round. Why not negotiate twice a year, or once every ten years? Anyway, how do you know what's going to happen in a year? Who would have known that September 11th would happen?
Quote:
As far as the agreed upon price that is done everyday and how they try and decide that is ridiculous. The factors you speak of rarely cause any issue with the oil supply. Because they "might" affect it people make decisions.
If you can't understand this very elementary fact, how can we discuss anything else? When I fill up my car, I 'agree' to the price, otherwise, I'd go to the next station. Why is that ridiculous? The factors I speak of definitely affect oil supply and demand, and those are just some factors.
Quote:
Since the oil companies don't set the price themselves how can inflation, regulations, wells drying up etc affect prices? The investors are doing the buying and making decisions. I don't think most of them have that information. Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
Are you being serious? How can inflation affect their prices? The definition of inflation is an increase in prices. When the value of the dollar falls, it takes more dollars to buy a barrel of oil. How do regulations affect prices? It costs money to comply with environmental, health, safety, financial, and other types of regulations. When these regulations increase, the cost of doing business increases. By the way, these investors have a lot of knowledge, more than most of us here.
Quote:
The true supply and demand curve changes multiple times a day?
Huge shifts in supply and demand don't have to change multiple times a day. The market's like a see-saw, prices go up and down every second trying to reach a balance between supply and demand.
Quote:
Once again the free market may allow that. But it is not always free.
So you're saying that since the market isn't free, we should add more regulation to make it less free? Impeccable logic!
If the oil companies and producers are making billions in profit now how is it going to make much difference if some inflation or regulations change? They still would be making millions if not billions of which most is going to share holders anyway and not for exploration.
Would you prefer twice a year? At least that would be more stable then constant price changes all day long.
If you haven't noticed, the gas station up the street is the same price as the other stations. They all work together to keep prices the same.
While things like Sept 11th or the Gulf wars could affect supply and demand...did they really? I think everyone got all the oil they wanted. There was/is no true shortages.
If you are saying we have to raise prices to get more production than that is an artifical shortage. A true shortage that should cause prices to go up would be one that is unavoidable. If they can increase production just because prices go up then they were holding back. (By true shortage I mean wars cut production way back, world demand exceeds true production ability)
The price see-saws to balance supply and demand? Who is demanding it? True users or investors wanting to make a buck or preserve a buck?
Make fair regulation. Set a price and keep it or keep players out. We wouldn't have to make alot of regulations if people didn't feel the need to play games and change the rules.
I see a simple world my friend.
Would you prefer twice a year? At least that would be more stable then constant price changes all day long.
If you haven't noticed, the gas station up the street is the same price as the other stations. They all work together to keep prices the same.
While things like Sept 11th or the Gulf wars could affect supply and demand...did they really? I think everyone got all the oil they wanted. There was/is no true shortages.
If you are saying we have to raise prices to get more production than that is an artifical shortage. A true shortage that should cause prices to go up would be one that is unavoidable. If they can increase production just because prices go up then they were holding back. (By true shortage I mean wars cut production way back, world demand exceeds true production ability)
The price see-saws to balance supply and demand? Who is demanding it? True users or investors wanting to make a buck or preserve a buck?
Make fair regulation. Set a price and keep it or keep players out. We wouldn't have to make alot of regulations if people didn't feel the need to play games and change the rules.
I see a simple world my friend.
Last edited:
..and now, an injection of much-needed FACTS:
1. State and Federal gov'ts make 4-5 times more "profit" on each gallon of fuel than does any oil company. TAXES.
2. When the federal government prohibits exploration, profits go to shareholders instead of exploration.
3. Most Americans who are invested in publicly traded stock and bonds own stock in energy-producing businesses. When the businesses makes a profit, they are happy about it because they get a bigger dividend and their portfolio grows in value.
4. Petro products are almost universally underpriced in terms of competition from alternatives. This means that American petro consumers get enormous value and benefit for their dolalrs. We see proof of this when prices go way up ($4/gal) but consumption barely waines.
5. The biggest competitor to petro-fuelled transportation, electric-powered transportation, is hamstrung by federal, state, and local governments along with environmental lobbyists, who have stymied development of clean nuclear power for over 40 years.
A series of straighforward Google searches will prove the correctness of the above statements. You don't have to take my word for it.
It seems we are still happy froggies-in-hot-water.
Best
1. State and Federal gov'ts make 4-5 times more "profit" on each gallon of fuel than does any oil company. TAXES.
2. When the federal government prohibits exploration, profits go to shareholders instead of exploration.
3. Most Americans who are invested in publicly traded stock and bonds own stock in energy-producing businesses. When the businesses makes a profit, they are happy about it because they get a bigger dividend and their portfolio grows in value.
4. Petro products are almost universally underpriced in terms of competition from alternatives. This means that American petro consumers get enormous value and benefit for their dolalrs. We see proof of this when prices go way up ($4/gal) but consumption barely waines.
5. The biggest competitor to petro-fuelled transportation, electric-powered transportation, is hamstrung by federal, state, and local governments along with environmental lobbyists, who have stymied development of clean nuclear power for over 40 years.
A series of straighforward Google searches will prove the correctness of the above statements. You don't have to take my word for it.
It seems we are still happy froggies-in-hot-water.
Best
Quote:
If the oil companies and producers are making billions in profit now how is it going to make much difference if some inflation or regulations change?
Because regulation changes the way markets, companies, individuals behave. It’s social engineering. It distorts price signals. It leaves markets opaque because we can’t truly assess human action or better put, we can’t find out why the consumer bought what he/she bought. Let me give you the ‘Bootleggers & Baptist’ theory on regulation to give you an idea how regulation changes a market, its competition, and finally prices…
So leading lawn garden equipment manufacturer is lobbying in D.C. They hire solid folks that work on K Street. The lobbyist keep an eye on the upcoming bills. On the other side sits a well established environmental group. They are a 501(c)(3) but have a 501(c)(4) arm as well. So the keen eye of said lawn garden equipment company’s lobbyist finds an upcoming EPA bill that said environmental group is helping craft. It’s aim- to regulate and lower emissions out of lawn mowers and lawn tractors. Long story short, the bill passes with both the lawn garden manufacturer and enviro group pushing it and pushing it hard.
So why does, what appears to be a very-conservative, storied, American manufacturer team up with a very storied environmental group? Because- the unlikely couple (the bootlegger and Baptist) both gained. Especially the lawn equipment maker- they spent maybe $2-3 million a year for their lobbyist who put some of their competitors down instead of $100 million or so on R&D on a new line of mowers/tractors. The lawn equipment maker eliminated a few competitors in it’s core business because they had an OHV type engine that passed the new emissions levels. Well, it obvious why the environmental group won.
But in the end, the consumer lost. They lost options to lower-priced “L” or “Nail head” type engines, which were basically eliminated from the market.
Does that paint a better picture of why regulation matters or how it affects prices of products? It’s a true story by the way…
Inflation, I’m not going to address. We’ve already established- oil is a commodity and when the dollar looses value, it’s more expensive to purchase. Simple as that- just like every other product that is imported.
Quote:
They still would be making millions if not billions of which most is going to share holders anyway and not for exploration.
Right, as someone else said, when exploration is limited (a la regulation) and there is nowhere to feasibly explore, then the money SHOULD go back to the shareholders as long as the company is well capitalized.
Quote:
Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
You can’t have your pie and eat it too. You are arguing subjective and objective points here. You are trying to make the subjective, well objective. You can’t do that. Setting a price is objective, the term ‘fair’ is subjective. However, I do believe in subjective value, not objective. And you would need an ‘enforcer’ of ‘fair prices’. I for one, don’t trust OPEC to do this nor Uncle Sam.
If the oil companies and producers are making billions in profit now how is it going to make much difference if some inflation or regulations change?
Because regulation changes the way markets, companies, individuals behave. It’s social engineering. It distorts price signals. It leaves markets opaque because we can’t truly assess human action or better put, we can’t find out why the consumer bought what he/she bought. Let me give you the ‘Bootleggers & Baptist’ theory on regulation to give you an idea how regulation changes a market, its competition, and finally prices…
So leading lawn garden equipment manufacturer is lobbying in D.C. They hire solid folks that work on K Street. The lobbyist keep an eye on the upcoming bills. On the other side sits a well established environmental group. They are a 501(c)(3) but have a 501(c)(4) arm as well. So the keen eye of said lawn garden equipment company’s lobbyist finds an upcoming EPA bill that said environmental group is helping craft. It’s aim- to regulate and lower emissions out of lawn mowers and lawn tractors. Long story short, the bill passes with both the lawn garden manufacturer and enviro group pushing it and pushing it hard.
So why does, what appears to be a very-conservative, storied, American manufacturer team up with a very storied environmental group? Because- the unlikely couple (the bootlegger and Baptist) both gained. Especially the lawn equipment maker- they spent maybe $2-3 million a year for their lobbyist who put some of their competitors down instead of $100 million or so on R&D on a new line of mowers/tractors. The lawn equipment maker eliminated a few competitors in it’s core business because they had an OHV type engine that passed the new emissions levels. Well, it obvious why the environmental group won.
But in the end, the consumer lost. They lost options to lower-priced “L” or “Nail head” type engines, which were basically eliminated from the market.
Does that paint a better picture of why regulation matters or how it affects prices of products? It’s a true story by the way…
Inflation, I’m not going to address. We’ve already established- oil is a commodity and when the dollar looses value, it’s more expensive to purchase. Simple as that- just like every other product that is imported.
Quote:
They still would be making millions if not billions of which most is going to share holders anyway and not for exploration.
Right, as someone else said, when exploration is limited (a la regulation) and there is nowhere to feasibly explore, then the money SHOULD go back to the shareholders as long as the company is well capitalized.
Quote:
Plus how would these things explain huge swings in price from say $ 30.00-147.00 a barrel. Their "costs" did not go way up or down to change those oil prices. A fair set price takes into account a fair profit for oil companies so they can keep drilling and exploring. They are still making money hand over fist now. I doubt the cost to get it out of the ground is going to make it unprofitable if a fair price is set and negoiated yearly.
You can’t have your pie and eat it too. You are arguing subjective and objective points here. You are trying to make the subjective, well objective. You can’t do that. Setting a price is objective, the term ‘fair’ is subjective. However, I do believe in subjective value, not objective. And you would need an ‘enforcer’ of ‘fair prices’. I for one, don’t trust OPEC to do this nor Uncle Sam.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Quote:
They still would be making millions if not billions of which most is going to share holders anyway and not for exploration.
Right, as someone else said, when exploration is limited (a la regulation) and there is nowhere to feasibly explore, then the money SHOULD go back to the shareholders as long as the company is well capitalized.
I think that they have the moxie to trump any effort to inhibit their desires via the aforementioned lobby. I'd rather say that they remain silent and realize that the ROI is yet too limited on any exploration ventures. They will be happy to realize the gains available through contracts and increasingly volatile speculation as the ebbs and flows of currency and demand jump all over the place. They don't care.
When global demand outstrips supply, they'll get the go ahead to spend as much as they please and get to do it wherever they want ..and get whatever ROI that can be had.
There's always the other side of the coin.
Quote:
They still would be making millions if not billions of which most is going to share holders anyway and not for exploration.
Right, as someone else said, when exploration is limited (a la regulation) and there is nowhere to feasibly explore, then the money SHOULD go back to the shareholders as long as the company is well capitalized.
I think that they have the moxie to trump any effort to inhibit their desires via the aforementioned lobby. I'd rather say that they remain silent and realize that the ROI is yet too limited on any exploration ventures. They will be happy to realize the gains available through contracts and increasingly volatile speculation as the ebbs and flows of currency and demand jump all over the place. They don't care.
When global demand outstrips supply, they'll get the go ahead to spend as much as they please and get to do it wherever they want ..and get whatever ROI that can be had.
There's always the other side of the coin.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD9FCN7RG1
Why?....because they can..........
Why?....because they can..........
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I can't wait to see what new economic fad they come up with to shake out the loose change that they didn't get the last round.
Oh, no! Prices are dropping! Ban the speculators!
I really don't understand you, prices go up, speculators bad. Prices go down, speculators bad. Who cares? Let the market decide. Speculators help correctly price the market. The fewer regulations we place on them, the better the economy as a whole will be.
I really don't understand you, prices go up, speculators bad. Prices go down, speculators bad. Who cares? Let the market decide. Speculators help correctly price the market. The fewer regulations we place on them, the better the economy as a whole will be.
- Status
Similar threads
