Election week gas prices were year's low; started rising again immediately afterwards

[Carol&Marc 0]

Bush secretly raises gas prices all by himself? Ignorance is bliss. Remember everyone, PROFIT is evil.

Care to refute specifically what was said in the article? Or do you prefer to dish out your daily dose of empty rhetoric?

My daily dose of rhetoric? Nope ,your doin great! Keep up the good work!

[silvanski 1]

Bush secretly raises gas prices all by himself?

Of course not

Blame it on Bill Clinton

[Fandango 1,439]

yeah yeah we get it. Buy that hybrid yet?

LOL, nah the wizard just hides behind his curtain telling people how to live

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow... "Coincidence" just doesn't seem to cut it.

No surprise of course. The free market isn't so "free" apparently

[Cassie 8]

Here in Tulsa, the prices jumped 12 cents overnight soon after the election, but now are back down to what they were before.

And I already bought my hybrid in May

[dani_christine 0]

*sigh*

if it's been said once, it's been said a hundred times....crude oil is a commodity, traded on the market. George Bush has NO control over the price of gas at your pump. yes...gas prices fluctuate. it's the reaction of buyers/sellers in the marketplace to world events, and the simple laws of supply and demand. crude oil prices have risen to such high levels because of overspeculation, and because of OPEC's tight controls on the supply. When prices start to drop, OPEC cuts production to keep the demand high.

Wanna be angry at someone? be angry at OPEC. or, better yet...be angry at the libs who freak the hell out at the mere mention of increased drilling in the US to tap into our own supplies of oil.

*shrug*

anyway, i just filled up my big ol' SUV yesterday at $1.96/gallon. that's not so bad, if ya ask me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wanna be angry at someone? be angry at OPEC. or, better yet...be angry at the libs who freak the hell out at the mere mention of increased drilling in the US to tap into our own supplies of oil.

So, that means that the ridiculously high profits that big oil has been raking in while we've been paying pemiums on gas have nothing at all to with what we pay at the pump? Who pays those profits then? Where would those come from? They just magically appear on the balance sheets?

[dani_christine 0]

ok...let's make this simple.

let's say we're talking about apples instead of oil.

a farmer grows and picks apples. he then sells the apples at the market...only instead of a "set" price, he auctions those apples off to the highest bidder. when there are more apples for sale, he is going to get a lower price. when there are fewer apples, he will get a higher price. that's supply and demand.

now, let's say that the weather forecasters call for a heavy freeze that will possibly damage the apple crops. the apple buyers are likely to pay a higher price for apples, even when the supply is high, because they are *speculating* that the supply will drop later, and prices will rise, and they are hoping that they will be able to re-sell those apples to potential buyers and turn a profit. that's speculation.

now, on the consumer end, when the apple buyers sell their apples in the grocery store, the price the consumer pays will be determined by how much the buyer had to pay for the apples to begin with. if supply was excessively low, or if speculation was excessively high, then the farmer will make record profits....and the consumer will pay a high price for the apples that they buy.

so...the oil companies are making huge profits, no question about it. but the blame lies with the free market. unless we reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and therefore, OPEC) by either increasing production in the USA or decreasing consumption...this problem will continue.

to lay blame on the president is to simply misunderstand how the system works. now...that said....i expect that we may very likely see a drastic rise in our fuel prices with democrats in control in the house. why? because...they think the best way to curb consumption of oil is to increase taxes. it's a stated goal, actually. this is why in the UK, gas is about $8/gallon.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

ok...let's make this simple.

let's say we're talking about apples instead of oil.

a farmer grows and picks apples. he then sells the apples at the market...only instead of a "set" price, he auctions those apples off to the highest bidder. when there are more apples for sale, he is going to get a lower price. when there are fewer apples, he will get a higher price. that's supply and demand.

now, let's say that the weather forecasters call for a heavy freeze that will possibly damage the apple crops. the apple buyers are likely to pay a higher price for apples, even when the supply is high, because they are *speculating* that the supply will drop later, and prices will rise, and they are hoping that they will be able to re-sell those apples to potential buyers and turn a profit. that's speculation.

now, on the consumer end, when the apple buyers sell their apples in the grocery store, the price the consumer pays will be determined by how much the buyer had to pay for the apples to begin with. if supply was excessively low, or if speculation was excessively high, then the farmer will make record profits....and the consumer will pay a high price for the apples that they buy.

so...the oil companies are making huge profits, no question about it. but the blame lies with the free market. unless we reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and therefore, OPEC) by either increasing production in the USA or decreasing consumption...this problem will continue.

to lay blame on the president is to simply misunderstand how the system works. now...that said....i expect that we may very likely see a drastic rise in our fuel prices with democrats in control in the house. why? because...they think the best way to curb consumption of oil is to increase taxes. it's a stated goal, actually. this is why in the UK, gas is about $8/gallon.

Not singling you out, Dani, but not one person here has even remotely attempted to refute what the article stated. I'm not into conspiracies theories and I understand (at least enough to get by) how the market works. What I find peculiar is how many people have easily dismissed this article without actually rebutting what was said.

Here, I'll give you and anyone else a piece of the article and you can run with it...

the Saudis and other pro-US players in the Middle East play[ed] a delicate balancing game by promising their OPEC friends that they would cut production, but then failing to commit to the cuts and even raising production slightly instead.

During a meeting in the Oval Office, according to [bob] Woodward, Bush personally thanked Bandar because the Saudis had flooded the world oil market and kept prices down in the run-up to the 2004 general election.

Is Bob Woodward in on the conspiracy?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/stojan1.html#

More on the story...

Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the G.S.C.I., said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.

.....

Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.

A sell-off of more than $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts? Let’s put it this way, a $6 billion trade is not decided on at the lower levels of the firm.

Keller provides some insight into the curious timing of this trade:

President George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Paulson to the position on June 28, 2006 and he was sworn into office on July 10, 2006. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. So what does Goldman do just weeks after Paulson is sworn in as Treasury Secretary? It announces a subtle move that drives down gasoline prices, short-term. Nice move, coming just months before the election.

But, nah...it's just more conspiracy theory...hmmm

[Carol&Marc 0]

Democrats take control after the election? Prices higher? Fcukin dems.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

yeah yeah we get it. Buy that hybrid yet?

Have you bought a science text book yet?

I'm starting with the comic book first. (remember I state historical fact and you state theories)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

ok...let's make this simple.

let's say we're talking about apples instead of oil.

a farmer grows and picks apples. he then sells the apples at the market...only instead of a "set" price, he auctions those apples off to the highest bidder. when there are more apples for sale, he is going to get a lower price. when there are fewer apples, he will get a higher price. that's supply and demand.

now, let's say that the weather forecasters call for a heavy freeze that will possibly damage the apple crops. the apple buyers are likely to pay a higher price for apples, even when the supply is high, because they are *speculating* that the supply will drop later, and prices will rise, and they are hoping that they will be able to re-sell those apples to potential buyers and turn a profit. that's speculation.

now, on the consumer end, when the apple buyers sell their apples in the grocery store, the price the consumer pays will be determined by how much the buyer had to pay for the apples to begin with. if supply was excessively low, or if speculation was excessively high, then the farmer will make record profits....and the consumer will pay a high price for the apples that they buy.

so...the oil companies are making huge profits, no question about it. but the blame lies with the free market. unless we reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and therefore, OPEC) by either increasing production in the USA or decreasing consumption...this problem will continue.

to lay blame on the president is to simply misunderstand how the system works. now...that said....i expect that we may very likely see a drastic rise in our fuel prices with democrats in control in the house. why? because...they think the best way to curb consumption of oil is to increase taxes. it's a stated goal, actually. this is why in the UK, gas is about $8/gallon.

Hm, funny thing is that if the apples at my local grocery store are too expensive (which they are most of the time), I head down to the local farmers market where I get them for half the price or less - not to mention much better quality. Don't exactly have that choice filling up, do I? The free market is not so free if it is controlled by a few giants.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

yeah yeah we get it. Buy that hybrid yet?

Have you bought a science text book yet?

I'm starting with the comic book first. (remember I state historical fact and you state theories)

Well put that comic down and look in the glossary of your old HS science textbook under theory...

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[dani_christine 0]

Hm, funny thing is that if the apples at my local grocery store are too expensive (which they are most of the time), I head down to the local farmers market where I get them for half the price or less - not to mention much better quality. Don't exactly have that choice filling up, do I? The free market is not so free if it is controlled by a few giants.

right. but what you CAN do is either stop eating so many apples or grow your own damn apples and no longer depend on the foreign farmers to grow 'em for you.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hm, funny thing is that if the apples at my local grocery store are too expensive (which they are most of the time), I head down to the local farmers market where I get them for half the price or less - not to mention much better quality. Don't exactly have that choice filling up, do I? The free market is not so free if it is controlled by a few giants.

right. but what you CAN do is either stop eating so many apples or grow your own damn apples and no longer depend on the foreign farmers to grow 'em for you.

A free market is only as free as long a true competition exists. Without it and it becomes a monopoly.

Exxon Mobil Corporation headquartered in Irving, a suburb of Dallas, Texas, USA, is the largest publicly traded integrated oil and gas company in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

Currently, ExxonMobil has donated over $600,000 to political candidates - second only to Koch Industries, a small oil company known for its high spending on Congressional candidates. The oil industry clearly favors republicans to push its agenda on Capitol Hill and ExxonMobil is no exception. In 2006, 89 percent of ExxonMobil's donations went to republicans.

In the 2004 election cycle, ExxonMobil outspent its peers in the industry with $935,016 given to Congressional candidates through its political action committee (PAC) and executive donations. In 2000, ExxonMobil spent almost $1.4 million on campaign donations - second only to the Enron Corporation.

Shall we continue to ignore the bull in the china closet?