Is George responsible for the crappy economy?

[welsh]

We have had this discussion before- how responsible is the executive for the economy?

Some say that the economy is generally out of the President's hands, that he is subject to the tides of the business cycle and global capitalism and has little power to act. Maybe, as an individual, but is this true for a ruling regime. For example, could Republican policies be responsible for the poor performance, or successful performance if you believe the smoke, of the economy?

But isn't that like saying that if the Chinese or the Germans play with currency fluctuation, they couldn't fuck up the economy.

Here is a bit from the NY Times of yesterday,

The Economy Unspun

oth sides in this campaign have engaged in the usual debate about how much the president can do about the economy, apart from taking credit in good times and denying responsibility in bad times. There is truth to the notion that presidents cannot repeal economic cycles, and that President Bush was not to blame for the recession in 2001, from March to November.

But that's about as far as it goes. With the recession long over, Mr. Bush's other excuses for a recovery that is not producing enough jobs - the Enron scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, his own war in Iraq - are unconvincing. The latest dismal job numbers clearly show that this administration's policies have failed to foster a flourishing economy. Worse, the president has failed to make midcourse corrections even as the job market has stalled.

Of all the economic indicators, the jobs record of the Bush years presents the most disturbing evidence that the forces currently at work in the economy are not merely cyclical. Economic distortions of historic dimensions have developed and can be traced in part to specific decisions. There is scant hope of a significant reversal without new policies.

It is now a certainty that Mr. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in 1932 to go into an election with a net decline in jobs over a single term. And there's more: during the Bush years, take-home pay, as a share of the economy, has fallen to its lowest level since 1929, when the government started keeping records. Corporate profits have grown faster - and wages and salaries far less - than in all other eight recoveries since World War II.

Mr. Bush tries to keep the focus on the job growth in the last year. But that has done little to erase the monthly losses that dominated the first nearly two years of the recovery. And the rate of job creation lately has barely kept pace with growth in the labor force. It has been well below the average of all post-World War II recoveries in all but March and April, when it was just above average. Last month, the economy needed to add about 300,000 jobs, rather than 96,000, just to hit the average.

How did we get here? Start with the tax cuts. Originally pitching them as a way to refund the budget surplus, the administration simply recast its tax cuts as a fiscal stimulus when the economy went south. But the tax cuts that may be appropriate for a thriving economy are not right for a recession or a sluggish recovery.

Tax breaks for affluent people, which Mr. Bush's mostly were, theoretically lead to capital growth and higher productivity and, from there, to more jobs. But since Mr. Bush was facing a downturn, not the boom in which he formulated his tax plans, it would have been much wiser to adjust to reality and enact measures to increase consumption, which leads more directly to job and income growth. Fully 37 percent of the cost of Mr. Bush's fiscal policies went to cutting the top tax rates on income, estates, dividends and capital gains, a tactic that does little to spur consumption. Only 3 percent went to aid for state governments - widely believed to be one of the most effective economic stimuli available.

So productivity growth, already strong, got the most support. The other economic drivers - consumption, job growth and income gains - got short shrift, and are now even weaker than they would otherwise have been. Worse, the administration knew what it was doing. Writing in The Times Sunday Magazine last month, Roger Lowenstein recounted a conversation in which Mr. Bush asked Glenn Hubbard, then his top economics adviser, what to do about the sagging job numbers. Mr. Hubbard told him not to let short-term numbers sway him from tax cuts. Those short-term numbers have been bad for nearly four years now.

In the meantime, the tax cuts have blown a hole in the federal budget. Conventional wisdom holds that the deficit - now $415 billion - does not affect employment because its effects are too abstract to be factored into day-to-day hiring decisions. That's only half-true. Hiring reflects confidence, and financial markets certainly watch the deficit. As the job situation fails to improve and the deficit restricts the nation's ability to respond, the markets react. Stocks tumbled last Friday with the job numbers and high oil prices. Even more ominous, the dollar fell against most major currencies, which could make it harder to finance America's outsized deficits and lead to rapidly rising interest rates.

True to the belief that tax cuts will eventually prove to be a cure-all, the administration has offered no meaningful relief to struggling Americans. In fact, Mr. Bush signed another tax cut last week and is expected to sign a deeply misguided corporate tax cut soon. Federal unemployment benefits expired at the end of 2003 and since then, three million people have exhausted their state benefits. Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed increased in September, both in number and as a share of the total unemployed population. The administration has balked at raising the minimum wage, now at its lowest level since 1949, relative to the average wage. And the Labor Department has effectively thwarted the 2002 law that was to have helped Americans who lose their manufacturing jobs to outsourcing.

The truth is, policies matter. Presidents matter. And this president has not done the right things for American workers.

 

[Bradylama]

I wonder why nobody suggests cutting Corporate taxes? Companies could probably afford to employ more people if they had more money.

 

[Lord 342]

True. Capitalism is self-leveling. It will swing around wildly for a while but eventually level out. Too many restrictions/regulations just hold it back from leveling and prolong the bad places in the cycle. Cutting taxes will help; I can't see how it couldn't. Higher taxes encourage people to horde rather than to spend, this doesn't help anything.

Anyway, There are different reports and people report different *parts* of the issue to make their point sound real good. I've heard, conversely, that the rate of economic growth is the highest it's been since 1984. So maybe we're in the toilet pan now but we're coming out of it like a rocket.

It's all what you hear.

 

[Roshambo]

I wonder why nobody suggests cutting Corporate taxes?

Maybe because it's the most stupid thing anyone would have to say about the situation? The tax breaks would be used to pad someone's paycheck, just like the extra money saved from outsourcing to foreign labor markets was often used to pad boardroom paychecks. It would also allow them to operate with less constraints, which if you hadn't noticed in how the govt. has turned from Democracy into revolving around the economy, the companies are starting to undermine the rights of people and be the ones determining the vote. They got church and state separated (oh, wait, they didn't), they forgot about state and corporations or entities of the same type.

Corporations do NOT need any help. To believe that they would in good faith use the savings where it logically should be put shows ignorance of the business world. In fact, the larger they are, the more taxes they should pay based upon their income and industry type. Unfortunately, you have the human element again, the lawmakers would still favor those that paid their campaign, and the whole thing is fucked to pieces. Corporations already get tax breaks and more, which is often a point of controversey when it applies to a particular industry or company that just padded the lawmaker's pocket, i.e. Bush.

It comes back to the problem of how to change the way the govt. works without a coup or an example, because those in office aren't really willing to change status quo. Why should they, as they are where they are and the living is good where they are concerned?

It is personal income, sales, and assorted consumer taxes being high that tends to stifle consumer spending. You know, those that affect the interests of those buying the stuff versus those making it.

 

[Zaij]

Rising oil prices are responsible.

 

[Roshambo]

"Rising oil prices" is a joke considering that the companies and govt. fully well CONTROL the oil prices. There's plenty of domestic oil that they fully won't touch, in addition to the raising of domestic oil prices to give "cause" to "seek" for foreign oil sources. All domestic drilling and refining companies need to do is slow the amount released to the market and voila! There you go, artificial oil price inflation in a nutshell.

It can go the other way given the reserves and large areas of untapped sources, but that depends on the Dickheads in charge.

 

[Bradylama]

Corporations do NOT need any help. To believe that they would in good faith use the savings where it logically should be put shows ignorance of the business world.

Its not a matter of faith, its a matter of good business practice. To assume that all companies are corrupt or incompetent shows ignorance of the business world.

In order to expand a company needs to be able to afford the expansion. They can't very well do that if a fifth of their profits are being leeched by a bloated beurocracy.

Sure, large corporations like Wal-Mart or McDonalds don't need the help, but there are tons of smaller businesses that can't compete with the big boys because they can't afford to get out of their regional areas.

It is personal income, sales, and assorted consumer taxes being high that tends to stifle consumer spending. You know, those that affect the interests of those buying the stuff versus those making it.

Well its not like I'm trying to say lower corporate taxes are the only solution. Actually lowering taxes instead of sending back our own money in the form of "tax breaks" is a start.

 

[welsh]

Damn, Rosh beat me to it.

I wonder why nobody suggests cutting Corporate taxes? Companies could probably afford to employ more people if they had more money.

Maybe. In places like Calcutta, Bangladesh, Malaysia, China and Mexico. After all, why pay a accountant in the US 60K, when you can pay an account in New Delhi $15K?

Of course that’s good for business though. Less labor costs means more corporate profits.

More corporate profits mean more money spent on supporting your favorite politicians.

Never mind the whole- retrain people, create opportunities for more jobs in the US, all that stuff.

True. Capitalism is self-leveling. It will swing around wildly for a while but eventually level out. Too many restrictions/regulations just hold it back from leveling and prolong the bad places in the cycle. Cutting taxes will help; I can't see how it couldn't. Higher taxes encourage people to horde rather than to spend, this doesn't help anything.
.

I am actually curious how this self-leveling process is supposed to happen. I will agree that there is a business cycle that shapes business and technology. But from what I can see, looking both in the US and internationally, the general rule for unregulated economies, or regulated economies where the regulation generally supports those who own the companies- that there is no leveling out. Generally the rich get richer and the poor get fucked.

Rising oil prices are responsible.

While the price you are paying for oil is going up (regardless of the Bush deals with the Saudis to keep prices stable), the price of oil has actually fallen over the last 20 years when measured against inflation. So yes, prices are going up, but they have been kept deflated for years. One reason lies in the Saudis who want to keep the prices of their export stable, and thus predictable. Wild fluctuation leads to unstable predictions on the nature and shape of markets, which makes economic planning more difficult.

Its not a matter of faith, its a matter of good business practice. To assume that all companies are corrupt or incompetent shows ignorance of the business world.

No, not really. It’s a question of business sense. Business are not inherently corrupt or incompetent, but do have a basic bottom line- to profit and retain as much profit as possible.

But the key struggle in the history of states has usually been between the state that hungers for extractable resources and society that seeks to restrain the state or at least get something out of the bargain. It is the issue of taxes and policies. This is true for business as much as individuals.

But Rosh’s point is not that businesses are corrupt and incompetent, although they sometimes are. The history of business corruption- the ENRONs, the Savings and Loans, the Martha Stewart type fraudulent/insider trading problems, are one of the reasons why the state exists- to protect and further the market.

Rather the point Rosh makes is that we cannot assume that companies have a social conscience. They don’t. It runs against their reason to exist. If they can profit from doing socially beneficial, they will do it. If they can’t they won’t.

You cannot assume that companies will do what is “socially right”. In fact, to do so is risky. The more a company loses profits in order to do what is best for society, the more it risks in the competition with its peers. Why? Its profits are not being reinvested in ways in which to increase it’s return, and it’s not paying its shareholders what they expect in lieu of a payment to individuals that the company has no direction relationship with. Shareholders are equally self-interested rational actors. Should the company with whom I own shares in, make a donation to society that comes at my expense, I would sell my shares and go to another company that is looking after its shareholders interest.

Assuming otherwise is ignorance and flies in the face of history.

In order to expand a company needs to be able to afford the expansion. They can't very well do that if a fifth of their profits are being leeched by a bloated beurocracy.

The fact is that the larger the company becomes the more the state is needed to regulate it. Looking at every state that has profited in the global economy and one finds that the states are forced to grow in relationship to that profit. Where states cannot grow in relationships to globalization, the greater the likelihood that business will falter or become corrupt.

Why, because economic growth means expansion of the market, and markets are created by states and provides that leveling mechanism to maintain the effectiveness of the market.

Bradylama- you assume a bloated bureaucracy- but the truth is that the bureaucracy has been so depleted over the last 20 years that they are scrabbling to fill the holes. There are so many holes that retirees are being brought back, and paid usually high salaries, to fill those slots. The bureaucracy is not bloated, but has been so trimmed in the US that it’s beginning to cost us at the core levels of national security and public order.

Next time there is a job fair ask the federal employers about opportunities- and most of them will tell you that they are losing a large section of their senior staff and have no replacements- why, because there have been so few hires over the past 20 years.

Sure, large corporations like Wal-Mart or McDonalds don't need the help, but there are tons of smaller businesses that can't compete with the big boys because they can't afford to get out of their regional areas.

To be clear, its exactly the Wal-Marts and the McDonalds- the large companies, that get the most profits. It is McDonalds that is killing the independent beef industry in the US, and making it harder for small cattle herders to stay in business. Likewise it is corporate farms that are destroying the chances of small farms. Small industry is under attack by large industry. And the thing is small industry is the middle class- the owners of small restaurants who get can’t competitive prices for beef, the small farmer who has to kiss up to Monsanto for seeds, the large cattle herders who keep the price of beef deflated that small cattle herders lose out do to economies of scale.

It is these folks that need support, not the big businesses.

Well its not like I'm trying to say lower corporate taxes are the only solution. Actually lowering taxes instead of sending back our own money in the form of "tax breaks" is a start.

Tax equality would be a fair start too. Right now we don’t have that. The middle class pays more taxes and receives less benefits than corporations. The notion that we get a tax break that saves us 9K in income doesn’t matter if-
(1) We pay more than 9K in new services and social needs- health insurance, after school activities, other expenses, or
(2) The job we had has been lost either to out-sourcing or because Walmart has killed the business or we’ve lost our farm. IF we got one of the new jobs Mr. Bush has been so proud of, we have probably lost that 9K in lost income alone.


What is funny is that people are talking about the danger of S-Corporations. S-Corporations refers to a loophole in the tax code in which small business owners get the limited liability afforded to corporations and don’t get screwed with paying double taxes.

In the US shareholders are protected from law suits against corporations though the notion of limited liability. The most that one might lose if you are a shareholder are your stocks should the company become insolvent through bankruptcy, or get bought out, or suffer a tort claim. Usually, for sole proprietorships and partnerships, if there is law suit brought against you, you can lose everthing- not just your company but your personal assets as well. Limited liability protects that.

But the cost of limited liability is double taxation. We see the corporation as a legal “person” and as such, pays taxes. You as shareholder also pay taxes on the income derived by shareownership. The S-Corp was a way that individuals could get the benefit of the limited liability plus the pay taxes only once, if they comply with the IRS code provisions.

In one way this sounds great and sounds fair. Small companies can, and usually did, incorporate themselves if they had a good lawyer and know what they are doing. On the downside, individuals who make a lot of money can also incorporate themselves and benefit from the protections of limited liability. One sees this a lot with professional athletes, and I would assume elsewhere.

I have been hearing a lot about repealing the S-Corp. I am not sure what that refers to nor even if Kerry is planning to repeal it.

It sounds more like a scare tactic of the Bush administration (consistent with the “Be Afraid, be Very Afraid” tour it’s taking this year in the campaign).

Editted- Check-
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html
for a discussion of the tax policy planned.

If were to be repealed, to a large extent, I doubt it would matter. The reason why is that there are other forms of business organization which achieve basically the same result. Over the past 20 or so years, limited liability companies, partnerships, associations, etc have become very fashionable. These often allow limited liability protection without the taxation consequences.

 

[Roshambo]

Its not a matter of faith, its a matter of good business practice. To assume that all companies are corrupt or incompetent shows ignorance of the business world.

Welsh already pointed out the flaw in this reasoning, but it still retains its humor.

Yeah...they'll do "good business" with the tax breaks, so they can hire more people from another country. Please tell me you've taken enough high school Economics to understand how hurting that is in the long term. Yeah, corporations do "good business". That's why they didn't give a shit about domestic workers and gave the jobs overseas so they can do more "good business" and "add to their own paycheck and investments".

In order to expand a company needs to be able to afford the expansion. They can't very well do that if a fifth of their profits are being leeched by a bloated beurocracy.

Sure, large corporations like Wal-Mart or McDonalds don't need the help, but there are tons of smaller businesses that can't compete with the big boys because they can't afford to get out of their regional areas.

That has less to do with tax and more to do with political influence in business, and actual ethics. On the books, it's easy to figure out how Wal-Mart got large from Chinese slavery. Also, as welsh pointed out, large corporations also stifle the smaller, not taxes. Corporations also come and go at the whims of investors and the market.

Well its not like I'm trying to say lower corporate taxes are the only solution. Actually lowering taxes instead of sending back our own money in the form of "tax breaks" is a start.

Corporations aren't there to hold your hand or have a conscience. Many have shown that they don't give a shit about domestic workers, working conditions, employee health and welfare, and forget any sense of obligation towards the end consumers. When a CEO or someone else isn't marching along with the rest of the board, they get replaced. Which ones show the problem the most? The larger corporations.

They are there for one reason, to make money. If they do well and entice investors, they get money to use fur operations. It is then through operations that they make profit, depending upon how well they can operate within costs but also retain market interest. Businesses of any size also attract those that would look into possibly controlling the company or buying into a sufficient amount of stocks to get into controlling interest. Their ideas aren't good for the company, what then?

And yet you're willing to throw them more leash. Simply unbelievable. Running a corporation is quite different than running your lemonade stand, which is why nobody gives a shit about sales tax in that case. It is also a completely different business entity and structure.

Just wait until all of the artificial boosting of the economy meets the fact that people can't afford much working at fast food, and then you'll pretty much have the situation today. A few rich people keeping the rest of the country in near poverty conditions since their degree doesn't mean shit since their job got outsourced and all they can work at now is fast food, buying low quality shit at low prices that doesn't work worth a damn.

To understand this better, take a look at the numerous problems around Wal-Mart, especially in context to them choking out smaller local NON-CORPORATION businesses that may have been operating there for years, but Wal-Mart then offers those of the community low salaries and almost nothing for benefits. If they could, Wal-Mart would make it like China, where the Wal-Mart employees can't afford to buy much from the same store they work at despite the jingle about low-low prices.

Oh, wait...that already is so in the US as well. It also isn't limited to Wal-Mart, as a Google search can see. How do you really compete with that kind of dishonest employment and manufacturing practice? Tax breaks or lowering taxes wouldn't really be the answer, and does nothing but put a lawmaker in someone's pocket and pad the boardroom paychecks. Or it might buy a remodel for the executive shitter. Most businessmen are vain, money hungry, and really don't care about anyone else but themselves and their paycheck. That mainly arises from the fact that if any of the rest of the large investors could take your share or get a larger share, you're asking to get the boot. Ask David Allen about that particular situation and how those he mistakenly put into a position of trust fucked him over royally. Simply put, you really can't view your business partners as friends, especially if you met them through business.

I'm done dealing with the ignorance. Get a job and get a clue.

 

[0rganism]

Making a slight return to the original question, I would concur with what Sen. Kerry brought up in the third debate: there are areas of the economy which are outside any president's direct control. And then there are those parts of the system which are entirely within his control, for which he is responsible. The president sets priorities with the budget. If his priorities are tax breaks and deregulation for his top campaign donors and war for everyone, then we get increased federal expenses and increased corporate profits. When those increased expenses overwhelm the revenue stream, we get huge defecits. It's not exactly rocket science.

George's policies have worked very well, from the point of view of someone who wants to diminish the stature of the federal government (domestically and internationally) while increasing the consolidation of wealth and influence of corporate leadership, long term. (That someone is named Grover Norquist, and his lobbying effort is called Americans for Tax Reform, which advances opinions similar to some on this thread.) Arguably, things have never been better for someone who has plenty of money already and wants to engage in some serious international investing and creative financing.

"Crappy economy? What crappy economy? It's so great I just donated $100,000 to the RNC. Fantastic recovery, George."

From the point of view of a CEO, the unemployment rate is a limited measure of available "Labor Surplus", the higher the better, until it starts to affect demand for your products. But if the government is awarding your company juicy defense contracts, you don't have to worry about that anymore, eh? No investment pays off quite like a friendly politician.

Not only will George take responsibility for the economy, he'll do it with a smile, because he's been a fantastic success in rewarding his primary constituents with direct kickbacks, no strings attached.

 

[Bradylama]

I'm done dealing with the ignorance.

No you're not. Let's face it, you live for this kind of stuff. Chances are you came back reading this message hoping for a new opportunity to pummel me with "enlightenment."

 

[Roshambo]

No you're not. Let's face it, you live for this kind of stuff. Chances are you came back reading this message hoping for a new opportunity to pummel me with "enlightenment."

Enlightened to the point that I'm through dealing with it yet or shall we go to Round Two? People are starting to complain about the General Discussion forum being clogged up with a lot of stupidity, now I see a likely source.

 

[Bradylama]

Couldn't have been me if this is a recent phenomenon. Been kinda busy.

Also, you'd think somebody would change the idiot avatar once in awhile.

Further also:

Chances are you came back reading this message hoping for a new opportunity to pummel me with "enlightenment."

I'm not hearing a no. =)

 

[slicer17]

Rosh is right about cutting corporate taxes....

I am all for it if we can stop the outsourceing of jobs, but we havent yet....

I'm a Loan Officer at a bank, and I see tax returns for small and semi large coporations... You would be surprised how little they pay in taxes already. a CPA (accountant) can get away with showing losees in the hundres of thousands, even when the company employess are really rolling around in mercedez benzes.... I am a firm believer of cutting taxes, but i see teh outsourcing of jobs being the biggest nemesis to our economy..

And whoever said oil prices are controlled by the us gov, kinda of.... Mostly its controlled by fear. Islamic oil producers tell us how they are goign to "stop the production of oil" and american oil producers use this as an opportunity to jack up the prices on us...

Bush and kerry, two great evils. I will vote libertarian or write in trafficant, however, if i had t vote for a stronger economy, i would vote for bush.

 

[Claw]

I can't remember the last time "Islamic" (I guess you are trying to imply this matters, although it really doesn't.) oil producers threatened to stop or even cut production, not in years for certain.

Quite on the contrary, they are not only producing over the agreed quotas already, they are also operating at their limits.

What I did notice though was this: At a time when the oil price was low, gas companies have increased gas prices and claimed it was due to the oil price.
And while practically every news show kept emphasizing how the oil price wasn't actually high, in the end it made no difference whatsoever, the prices went up and noone could do anything about it but lament.

So... someone is to blame, but no oil producer; not even an Islamic one.

 

[welsh]

I can't remember the last time "Islamic" (I guess you are trying to imply this matters, although it really doesn't.) oil producers threatened to stop or even cut production, not in years for certain.

I think the last oil shock was 1982 or 1983, and I believe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was the justification. Before that it was 1973 and 1977-78.

What might be driving the oil issue is simple speculation. Problems in Nigeria, Venezuela, and Russia might be giving investors reason to think the price of demand will go up.

 

[Roshambo]

I think the last oil shock was 1982 or 1983, and I believe the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was the justification. Before that it was 1973 and 1977-78.

'82-83 was just as bullshit then as it is now. With the Alyeska pipeline built in 1977 for just this reason, and the obvious point that there's a shitload more oil available in Alaska and in areas that they haven't tapped at all, there really isn't a shortage of oil coming from that route.

After all, the oil companies are Bush's buddies. All he has to do is say "invent something" and suddenly domestic oil goes down in volume, which creates a panic and gives reason to "look" to foreign sources, while at the same time driving domestic oil prices up. Texas and other sources are refined and price matched to that of the imported oil. Alaskan oil is often sold to foreign markets, which is one thing that pisses off most Alaskans in how the gas prices are fixed despite the refineries in state. Depending upon the company or situation, gas is brought into Alaska, sometimes mid-east oil, and the prices really go through the roof then as the domestic companies take advantage of that and set their price accordingly. Elissar might have seen this in his time in Alaska, but it's really most evident by Fairbanks and North Pole. About the only break you ever get there is if you physically drive up to the refinery.

Yes, there's an "oil shortage", just because the oil company or three decided to sell to foreign companies at a higher price than they could get at domestic prices. If you thought gasoline prices were bad in the US, take a look around the world. Much of that is caused by greedy oil companies making more money by selling overseas for a higher price, and creating a "shortage" in the US in order to push for political interests.

The real problem around the price of oil is when the oil companies would sell domestic oil at higher prices than foreign oil prices. Many US companies don't like dealing with foreign markets due to logistics costs, so when they have to deal with US sources, it costs more if the oil companies want it to. When the price of deomestic goes up, the buying company could either look at the limited supply of imported oil or pay a higher cost from domestic sources. Therefore to create a panic, all the oil companies need to do is report a shortage of oil produced for domestic use and drive the price through the sky. It is also how an overwhelming amount of oil execs became rich, in that they have been able to play with the prices at the expense of US companies and consumers.

Here's a link with some interesting tidbits. In particular, where they go about how dangerous it is to get the oil, yet those people are already well-paid, as are the execs, well over the amount that their price fixing provides for. In fact, judging by the ramblings of the insane company toady "field engineer" there in Algeria, they could stand to shell out a bit more for safer work conditions. Those who work on the North Slope don't encounter as many problems and missing fingers are NOT a normal thing there. His company? Halliburton, no surprise. Now with the companies planning on controlling as much oil as possible in the mid-east as well, get ready for the real gas price reaming to start.

 

[slicer17]

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Aramco, the world's biggest oil company by production, can raise oil output capacity by 30 percent to meet global demand without financing from overseas producers

Knobody has heard of OPEC? Run by dominently muslim countries? hrmmm...

They dont allow foreign oil producers to develop oil fields... Stunting oil production.

Also, the united states is producing new oil at alarming rates. My dad works on the Atlantis Oil platform project which should start producing oil in 3 years.
There are more then 11 of these platforms being produced right now. It is obvious that oil is running low, but it is more obvious that oil companies use fear to raise the prices on the average american.

 

[Claw]

You are braindead. Just my opinion.

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, can raise its limit by 3.2 million barrels of oil a day to more than 14 million barrels within two years

Near Full Capacity

Saudi Arabia and the other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries are pumping at nearly full capacity to help meet rising global demand for oil that pushed prices to a record $55 a barrel in New York on Friday.

Moron.


Thanks for no link.

 

[Roshambo]

It is obvious that oil is running low,

Not really. There's still plenty of oil around from untapped sources.

Or am I the only one on this forum that knows what ANWAR is and how it's being used as an excuse to not turn towards those deposits? Although, you'll find that for different reasons, differing sides don't want to drill there. For the area, a facility of a few acres would hardly be amiss, but then you get into dealing with the wildlife.

Aside from that there is still hardly a shortage of oil, but rather an increase in the use of oil because of shitty vehicles that have poor gas mileage. SUVs, anyone? Ford had to settle a suit because a number of theirs were operating at less than half what the sticker said, and they are hardly the only ones.

It's kind of hard to really not see the connections between the drive for larger gas-guzzling vehicles, the "shortage" of oil, and the "need" to go over to another country and take their oil fields by force. It then becomes a simple matter of lessening the wasteful use of the resource.

However, as in all politics, the Republicans would probably blame the oil "crisis" on the Democrats and others not wanting to drill there in ANWAR to feed the increasing number of gas hogs. Opening ANWAR would put it right into the controlling hands of the current oil companies, which then does nothing but put yet another oil field into the hands of someone with controlling interest. Plan on plenty of that, if it ever gets voted through, to be sold overseas.