Re: Oil Futures.
Murky, 90 miles is not "a few miles." Even if it were, China is not drilling in Cuba. China has an exploration lease and has done seismic testing, but has not even sunk an exploratory well yet. I don't see why you can't own up to the fact that you were mistaken. **** Cheney did. I don't fault you for the mistake. It came from a reliable source. However, you used this "fact" to justify the argument that we should be pulling oil out of the ocean off of Florida because China is already doing so. Remove the "fact" and the argument falls apart. China has exploratory wells in Cuba. To my mind, that doesn't justify drilling in the ocean off of the Florida coast.
Up to this point, most of what you've done is to simply repeat that whatever I have said is silly, simple, or clueless, but you've never given a solid reason why. You've leveled personal insults at me, and at my ability to do my job, and again you've given no reason why. To me, that speaks of a personal grudge rather than an attempt to sort out the topic of oil futures.
The only actual argument I've seen from you which responds to my points reasonably was this:
"if the worlds largest cornsumer of a world wide commodity (known as oil) significantly reduces demand the prices would drop"
and this:
"if significant supply, (or even the perception of seriously searching for significant supply), should occur prices would drop as the speculators lost money on thier trades. "
The first statement may be true, but I would question it. If we were to reduce our oil usage by 10%, the impact on the total market would be a 2.6% reduction in the overall demand for fuel worldwide. The question at that point for the oil producers would be whether to lower prices and offer more product at lower margins, or to lower production and maintain margins.
The second statement simply begs the question--why would a company in the business of selling oil want to do something that would decrease the prices, and hence their profits? That's what I'm talking about. I admit, I'm no economist, and I'm open to correction (not attack, but correction) but this is how it seems to me: The oil is there, but it isn't in Mobil or Chevron's interest to start pulling it out of the ground at greater cost to them than their current supplies when they've kept the same profit margins regardless of the price. In other words, the more it sells for, the higher their profits. Money for nothing. To you, that might seem like simple supply and demand, but to me it seems far more complex.
In short, and as I have said throughout this thread, supply and demand still applies, but when "supply" can be extensively manipulated to drive prices up, and demand has more to do with Goldman Sachs than with actual usage, "supply and demand" becomes an entirely different ball game with different rules. You've compared supply and demand to gravity. It's far more complex than gravity, but you're right in one way. It sucks.
I have to wonder why is it that you seem so inclined to throw out these personal attacks based on the ideas I'm putting out here? I'm just interested in inserting some new ideas and factual information into this discussion. I'm not the only one here who has pointed out that the oil markets are heavily manipulated and that drilling on US soil won't necessarily solve our problems. Apparently, there are a lot of folks here who are silly, simple, and clueless.
If you want a debate, perhaps you should bring some ideas. If you want to give the appearance that you've lost the argument, keep up with the personal attacks.
