Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hot money rotating into commodities from their easy money pumping quantitative easing program. Just look at what happened to commodity prices since the Bernanke Jackson Hole Wyoming speech from August, 2010 where he announced QE lite. And look at now with the fallout from these high prices and the anticipated end of Quantitative Easing, we see a deflationary wave setting up until some powerful people cry uncle and then the central bankers will likely resume their hot money inflationary policies. We are still beholden these same private central bankers who are basically owned by their primary dealer money center banks on Wall Street who have plunged our economy into a depression.
Very true, the Fed creates fertile ground for speculative driven bubbles.
How many jobs do oil speculators create? From my view, oil speculators kill jobs by driving up gas prices and slowing the economy. Oh, but wait, if forgot that the 'high gas prices kill jobs by slowing the economy' argument is only supposed to be used when criticizing President Obama.
Well, you are not going to STOP the speculators, there are futures markets all over the world. Shut it down here.......guess what.....the vacuum WILL be filled elsewhere.
And yeah, those guys who make a living.....well, they value their jobs. And the money they make gets spread around......you know....capitalism and stuff.
Let's look at your graph, because it seems to prove my point. If raising the money supply causes an increase in the price of oil, then why did the price of oil begin spiking years before the money supply was increased, when the money supply was steady? In fact, it peaked long before QE and declined after QE. (Look at the period 2005 - 2010.)
The steady period, 1985 - 2005, shows oil price volatility when the money supply was steadily increasing at roughly 2%/yr.
Let me understand this, Obama predicted oil prices would rise, and they did, so he's responsible.
So, if I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, I'm responsible for the sun rising?
The fact is that Obama antagonists were claiming that Obama policies were shrinking supply but we see that production is up.
But what I read here is contradictory. Obama antagonists claim that the Sanders proposal won't work because trading is world wide. Then they claim, in the same breathe, that Obama's policies and the price of the dollar are causing high prices, even though Obama's policies are not world-wide and the price of oil is rising in countries that don't use dollars.
So which is it?
He didn't predict they would. He said under his policies that they would skyrocket. He said he would make prices go up.
He didn't predict they would. He said under his policies that they would skyrocket. He said he would make prices go up.
See the difference?
Ok, what were those policies? We already know oil production is up 11% and demand is down -- the two factors in supply and demand. You must have learned that Economics201 in Economics 101.
Ok, what were those policies? We already know oil production is up 11% and demand is down -- the two factors in supply and demand. You must have learned that Economics201 in Economics 101.
Don't know. He said under his policies energy prices would skyrocket. And they have gone up since he has been president.
Why don't you dig up some fancy little chart to show what his policies are. You are the one pretending to be an expert on world oil prices.
All I know is the President promised he would make prices go up and he has been successful.
Don't know. He said under his policies energy prices would skyrocket. And they have gone up since he has been president.
Why don't you dig up some fancy little chart to show what his policies are. You are the one pretending to be an expert on world oil prices.
All I know is the President promised he would make prices go up and he has been successful.
That's not how debate works. If you make an assertion (e.g. Obama's policies have made energy prices rise) the onus is on you to supply the proof -- not me to act as your research assistant.
But you already admitted that you don't know what the policies are. The context in which Pres. Obama said that was with respect to cap-and-trade. However, Congress never passed cap-and-trade. So it's difficult to see how a policy that never passed is responsible for the effect that was dependent on the bill's passage.
That's not how debate works. If you make an assertion (e.g. Obama's policies have made energy prices rise) the onus is on you to supply the proof -- not me to act as your research assistant.
But you already admitted that you don't know what the policies are. The context in which Pres. Obama said that was with respect to cap-and-trade. However, Congress never passed cap-and-trade. So it's difficult to see how a policy that never passed is responsible for the effect that was dependent on the bill's passage.
He promised energy prices would skyrocket if he were elected President.
They have certainly gone up. He should take credit.
And I do know what the policies are. But you will come up with some excuse as to why I am wrong and you are right. So what's the point? And you say we are in a debate. LOLs. How can you debate when you won't let facts get in the way.
Anyway, the reason prices have gone up have already been spelled out on here by other posters and you dismissed them. Proving my point, you made up your mind and facts are not going to get in your way.
Now you are just being misleading. I don't know if you know this but bills don't become laws unless they are passed by BOTH houses of Congress and then signed by the President. Cap-and-trade never made it to law and thus couldn't be responsible for higher energy prices.
I do understand Obama antagonists need to cling to every possible straw to blame bad news on him regardless of justification. This is a perfect example.
Let's look at your graph, because it seems to prove my point. If raising the money supply causes an increase in the price of oil, then why did the price of oil begin spiking years before the money supply was increased, when the money supply was steady? In fact, it peaked long before QE and declined after QE. (Look at the period 2005 - 2010.)
The steady period, 1985 - 2005, shows oil price volatility when the money supply was steadily increasing at roughly 2%/yr.
I don't think it is Just QE, it is the overall easy money through low interest rates. We have been chasing speculative bubbles for years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
