ATLANTA TRANSIT (Marta, Beltline, Peachtree Streetcar, LovJoy Commuter, etc...)

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

If too few people buy the patches at $57, the price will fall. If way too few people buy at $57, the price will fall substantially. If nobody buys at $57, the patches will go on clearance. Cold turkey is free, and only you can decide whether the patch is worth $57. Willing buyer, willing seller.

Taming That Overwhelming Urge to Smoke
By MARTIN DOWNS

Regis Duvignau/Reuters
It may be easy to start smoking, but quitting is a bit trickier.
IN BRIEF:
The brain of an addicted smoker treats nicotine as if it is essential for survival.
Genetic traits may predispose some smokers to stronger addiction.
Most smokers try to quit unaided, resulting in a high failure rate.
If you smoke, no one needs to tell you how bad it is. So why haven’t you quit? Why hasn’t everyone?
Because smoking feels good. It stimulates and focuses the mind at the same time that it soothes and satisfies. The concentrated dose of nicotine in a drag off a cigarette triggers an immediate flood of dopamine and other neurochemicals that wash over the brain’s pleasure centers. Inhaling tobacco smoke is the quickest, most efficient way to get nicotine to the brain.
“I completely understand why you wouldn’t want to give it up,” said Dr. David Abrams, an addiction researcher at the National Institutes of Health. “It’s more difficult to get off nicotine than heroin or cocaine.”
Smoking “hijacks” the reward systems in the brain that drive you to seek food, water and sex, Dr. Abrams explained, driving you to seek nicotine with the same urgency. “Your brain thinks that this has to do with survival of the species,” he said.
Nicotine isn’t equally addictive for everyone. A lot of people do not smoke because they never liked it to begin with. Then there are “chippers,” who smoke occasionally but never seem to get hooked. But most people who smoke will eventually do it all day, every day.
New discoveries in genetics may explain why certain people take to smoking with such gusto and end up so addicted. Some people, for instance, produce a gene-encoded enzyme that clears nicotine from their bloodstreams rapidly, so they tend to smoke more and develop stronger addictions. Others possess special receptors in the brain that bond extra tightly with nicotine, giving them an especially intense high that makes it harder to quit.
Drug makers are exploiting the science of addiction to create novel treatments to help smokers quit. The newest stop-smoking medication, the first to be approved in 10 years, is called Chantix. Available by prescription, Chantix masquerades as nicotine well enough to occupy the brain’s nicotine receptors, where it may lessen cravings. Real nicotine, when it comes along, cannot find enough free receptors to do its thing.
Chantix seems to have a higher success rate than Zyban, an antidepressant that helps to balance dopamine levels. And recently released federal guidelines to doctors for helping smokers quit reported that the drug, combined with the nicotine replacement patch and use of nicotine nasal spray or gum as needed, produced higher long-term abstinence than the patch alone.
Doctors have written millions of prescriptions for Chantix, though enthusiasm for the drug was tempered by reports of suicide and bizarre behaviors in people taking it. The reports prompted the Food and Drug Administration to issue a safety warning about Chantix early in 2008.
“That’s something that needs to be taken very seriously, but it needs to be put in the context of what happens if you don’t quit smoking,” said Dr. Michael Fiore, a smoking cessation specialist at the University of Wisconsin and chairman of the government panel that issued the new guidelines. Dr. Fiore used to consult for Pfizer, the maker of Chantix, but said he cut those ties in 2005. He still prescribes the drug but now takes care to discuss the safety warning with patients.
Dr. Nancy Rigotti was involved in Chantix studies conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where she directs the Tobacco Research and Treatment Unit. “Those trials mostly enrolled people who were pretty healthy,” she said. “They did not include people with depression or much of a history of depression.”
Dr. Rigotti said it was possible that varenicline, the generic name for Chantix, “might have more psychiatric side effects in certain groups of people.”
Continued research should help to resolve lingering concerns about the safety of Chantix. Meanwhile, experts continue to recommend the old standbys: nicotine replacement gums, patches, nasal sprays, inhalers and lozenges, which have been proved to be safe.
Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, heart disease or other major health problems linked to smoking; other chemicals in tobacco smoke are to blame. Nicotine replacement can be used alone or with prescription medications or, for best results, combined with counseling. Recent evidence suggests that using two forms simultaneously, like the patch and gum together, works better than either alone.
Although nicotine replacement products do not require a prescription, the F.D.A. limits where and how they are sold. They are also expensive.
“It’s so much easier to go down to the corner store and get a pack of cigarettes than it is to get access to evidence-based treatment,” Dr. Fiore said.
This year, the New York State health commission petitioned the F.D.A. to revise its rules so that nicotine gum, patches and lozenges could be sold anyplace that sells cigarettes, and at prices comparable to a cigarette pack. The agency is currently reviewing the petition.
Still, no treatment works for everyone. And even with the most successful treatments, only about 30 percent of attempts to quit last more than six months. Compared with willpower alone, however, that’s a huge improvement. Fewer than one in 10 smokers who go it alone manages to go six months without a cigarette. Most do not make it past a week.
When longtime smokers finally do quit, they soon realize that not smoking doesn’t necessarily make them nonsmokers. That’s what counseling is for — learning to function without nicotine and to cope with the cues that trigger smoking urges.
Most important, former smokers have to rediscover that it is possible to enjoy life without cigarettes, although the yearning may never die completely.
“I’m an ex-smoker,” Dr. Abrams said, “and I still miss it.” said.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

If too few people buy the patches at $57, the price will fall. If way too few people buy at $57, the price will fall substantially. If nobody buys at $57, the patches will go on clearance. Cold turkey is free, and only you can decide whether the patch is worth $57. Willing buyer, willing seller.

Do you really believe that crap? Do you think the tobacco companies aren't some how manipulating this price? Should the tobacco companies not be paying for the patches in the first place? They did sell a product for years they said was not addictive and did not cause health conditions. Of course they lied and hid documents for years.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

Most important, former smokers have to rediscover that it is possible to enjoy life without cigarettes, although the yearning may never die completely.
“I’m an ex-smoker,” Dr. Abrams said, “and I still miss it.” said.

No doubt about it. I quit 15 years ago but still think about lighting up sometimes.




Which reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

He: "Do you smoke after sex?"

She: "I don't know, I never looked."

<rim shot>

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by Andrea

No doubt about it. I quit 15 years ago but still think about lighting up sometimes.




Which reminds me of one of my favorite jokes:

He: "Do you smoke after sex?"

She: "I don't know, I never looked."

<rim shot>

I just peed a little.

[Fiorenza]

Famous sex quotes:

"You know 'that look' women get when they want sex? Me neither." - Steve Martin

"Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand." - Woody Allen

"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night." - Rodney Dangerfield

"Women may be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships." - Sharon Stone

"My girlfriend always laughs during sex -- no matter what she's reading." - Steve Jobs

"Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is." - Barbara Bush

"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place." - Billy Crystal

"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house." - Rod Stewart

"See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." - Robin Williams

[Andrea]

Fiorenza, those are hilarious!!

[micropundit]

Yeah, except the jokes attributed to Woody Allen and Rodney Dangerfield are reversed.Thanks for starting my day out with a good laugh.

[BabydaddyATL]

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/co...s+--+lifestyle+subindex+page_top+stories
The Reason for High Oil Prices
It's not a supply crisis that explains the sharp spike in oil prices. It's unregulated commodities markets and greed

"One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong." —David Kelly, chief market strategist, J.P. Morgan Funds; The Washington Post, May 4, 2008

"...There is substantial evidence that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased [oil] prices." —U.S. Senate Staff Report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, June 27, 2006

On May 13, the price of a barrel of oil briefly hit a record of $126.98 on the New York Mercantile Exchange The reason was ostensibly that Iran was cutting oil production. But there is no gas shortage. So why are prices still going up?

In late April the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual invitation-only dinner in Dallas for, as my source put it, "the bigwigs" of the energy industry. During this meeting, influential and knowledgeable CEOs reached the consensus that "oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas." Of course, despite the pedigrees of those in attendance, their forming a consensus on the direction of energy prices does not mean that it's written in stone or is even going to happen. The group is clearly bullish on natural gas. But petroleum keeps getting more expensive.

The energy executives' prediction about the future price for crude oil had sound backing. Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers (LEH) investment bank had said that this current oil pricing boom was quickly coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank's chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain's Daily Telegraph on Apr. 24 as saying: "[Oil supply] is outpacing demand growth." Waldron added, "Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year. The Saudi Khursaniya field has just opened, with 500,000 barrels a day of production, and the new Khurais field will start next year with a further 1.2 million b/d [barrels a day]."
Waldron's assertion rang true. In the U.S. alone, stockpiles of oil climbed by 11.9 million barrels in the month preceding the Energy Information Agency's (EIA) May 7 inventory report; they were up by nearly 33 million barrels since Jan. 1. At the same time, MasterCard's (MA) May 7 gasoline report showed that gas demand has fallen by 5.8%, while the government suggested that gasoline consumption might have fallen by slightly over 6%.

We do know that refineries in the U.S. again cut back their utilization to 85%. That's down from 89% a year ago, in a season when production is normally 95%, only because they're trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up. Yet despite the reduced refinery runs, the EIA said, the U.S. managed to put another 800,000 barrels of gasoline in stock. The American Petroleum Institute put the gas gain at 1.4 million barrels. The point is that neither organization is in disagreement that gasoline was added into our active stocks; it's just a question of exactly how much.

Only the day before, the EIA had released its monthly Short Term Energy Outlook report, concluding that U.S. oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008. Chinese consumption is expected to rise this year by only 400,000 b/d—hardly the "surging oil demand" usually blamed on China in the media. Last year China imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The U.S., by contrast, consumes around 20.7 million b/d.

The May 8 report from Oil Movements, a British company that tracks oil shipments worldwide, shows that oil in transit on the high seas is quite strong; almost every category of shipment is running higher than it was a year ago. The one exception was oil shipments to the West during the previous 30 days. Even there, on page three of that report, comes the cryptic line, "In the West, a big share of any [oil] stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight." Oil Movements' Roy Mason qualified that line: "Oil in temporary floating storage offshore is hard to pin down, and we don't have useful info on that. Whenever this happens it generates market noise—and we don't hear any!"

Still, the consensus of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the energy executives may be right: No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today.

THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE (PARTIAL) TRUTH
So how to explain the May 6 report from Reuters (TRI) that Goldman Sachs (GS) announced that oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike," possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months? Forget the fact that few other oil analysts agreed with that position, "$200 a barrel!" was the major news story on oil for the next two days. Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, predictably laid the blame on "blistering" demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his belief that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. While the outside chance exists that Murti is right, his prediction certainly isn't backed up by the EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook, or by Lehman Brothers' report from 10 days earlier. As for the Middle East being tapped out on oil production, there might be one more thing to consider.

On May 2, the Friday before this prediction made news, Bloomberg had reported that Iran is again storing its heavy crude on tankers in the Persian Gulf because the country has run out of onshore storage tanks while awaiting buyers. Further, Saudi Arabia has extended discounts on its sour crudes to $7.45 for Arabian Heavy. Doesn't sound like there's any real supply problem with that grade of crude, does it?

It is an understatement to say that over the last five years the media have rained reports predicting an impending energy Armageddon. But those reports have tended not to disclose their sources—which often were individuals heavily invested in the oil futures market.

For example, Goldman Sachs was one of the founding partners of online commodities and futures marketplace Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). And ICE has been a primary focus of recent congressional investigations; it was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing last December. Those investigations looked into the unregulated trading in energy futures, and both concluded that energy prices' climb to stratospheric heights has been driven by the billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE—which is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES
In case you've forgotten, it was only 2001 when BusinessWeekreported that some Wall Street firms were hard-selling to the public stocks that their companies were quietly divesting—and/or pushing questionable stocks for companies in which their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In a nutshell, some individuals with a specific vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to enrich themselves and their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag.

Once that deception was uncovered (after the stock market collapsed), and after the congressional hearings in 2001 proved beyond any doubt that these things had happened, the national media swore that they would never again be taken in by this type of corporate deceit. Then came 2004 and oil.

As the second quote at the beginning of this column makes clear, the Senate pointed out in its 2006 report that oil reserves (not including the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) were at a 20-year high during the time that report was written; therefore, there was no shortage of oil whatsoever. This seemed to confirm a Jan. 10, 2007, article in Reuters that quoted Tony Nunan, a risk manager at Mitsubishi: "We've got a short-term [oil] oversupply problem." Yes, an oil oversupply problem in fall of 2006.

Then, as now, that certainly isn't what we were being told. Instead we were being bombarded daily in the media and analysts' reports with justifications for the high price of oil: The "terrorism premium" on each barrel of oil, the rising demand of China and India, troubles in the Nigerian oil patch, oil pipelines' being blown up in Iraq, wider war in the Middle East, T. Boone Pickens' warnings that the world was on the cusp of Peak Oil, "surging demand" for gasoline in the U.S., the weak dollar—and so on. (Peak oil is described as the world crossing the halfway mark for extracting its oil reserves. It is not maximum production.) However, the Senate took a dim view of those excuses, particularly the ones about Peak Oil or diminished capacity for oil production: "There's a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak [oil] theories and hot buttons of supply and demand, and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy." (The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, U.S. Senate, June 27, 2006).

Yes, this line suggests that persons invested in the oil futures market are purposely driving even more money into oil to raise the prices even higher, even though the market's actual supply and demand in no way justifies their claims. On a side note, Enron is named frequently in both investigations as exemplifying this type of energy market manipulation.

And, although both the Senate and the House have already investigated why oil is selling for more than supply and demand dictate, on May 12 we found out that the House Energy & Commerce Committee will look at this issue once again this month and into June.

Let's give Congress a little direction.

COVERING THEIR LOSSES?
Commodities have often been the refuge for investors who have lost money on equities or fixed-income investments. Moreover, the commodities rush today is not limited to oil; now we also have runaway food and feed prices. Could it be that all the financial losses on subprime mortgages, plus the anticipation that the option ARM mortgages about to reset could be an even bigger problem, combined with the huge losses in securities last year, are why investment money today is flooding into often unregulated commodities, where the demand pricing of the final goods is inelastic?

Consider this: You may not buy gasoline or even eat today, but by next Monday you'll probably have to do both, no matter what it costs. Basically, besides enabling the Fed to bail out Wall Street and our banks again, every time you gas up or eat you may be paying investors to cover other financial losses. We know that investors can't control their losses on mortgages, securities, or bad loans. But, demonstrably, if not restrained they can drive up the price of goods that we can't get out of buying. Odds are, that's what's really been going on.

Ed Wallace holds a Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. His column heads the Sunday Drive section of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he is a member of the American Historical Society. The automotive expert for KDFW Fox 4 in Dallas, Wallace hosts the top-rated talk show Wheels, Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 570 KLIF AM in Dallas.

[BabydaddyATL]

MarketsWork and Testarossa, you guys always tell us "liberals" that the free market should be left unchecked by the government. As you can see from the article above, this is WHAT HAPPEN WHEN CAPITALIST ARE UNREGULATED - WE GET SCREWED. I want you to give us a commentary on your opinion of this article, as well as, defend your past opinions. Thanks.

Liberals - It's time to get angry, damn angry!!!

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

MarketsWork and Testarossa, you guys always tell us "liberals" that the free market should be left unchecked by the government. As you can see from the article above, this is WHAT HAPPEN WHEN CAPITALIST ARE UNREGULATED - WE GET SCREWED. I want to give us a commentary on your opinion of this article, as well as, defend your past opinions.

Liberals - It's time to get angry, damn angry!!!

You seem to know an awful lot about this. Since you're the one with all the answers, why don't you answer a few questions I have about your thoughts on government regulation?

1) How do you expect the government to intervene in the trade decisions of other nations? More wars?

2) You have said repeatedly in this thread that the price of oil does not take into account its many apparent environmental ills. This suggests the price of oil is lower than the socially efficient level.

3) You have said repeatedly in this thread that the greedy behavior of OPEC nations and other "capitalist" entities has inflated the price of oil. This suggests the price of oil is higher than the socially efficient level.

Which is it? #2 or #3?

4) If the price of oil has been driven up due to speculation, it is highly likely that the price will fall in the future. Why aren't you investing in futures contracts?

5) If you aren't investing in futures contracts, that means you think the price of oil will stay this high. This implies that the stockpiles of oil will perpetually absorb this excess oil supply and will continue to grow forever. Do you think this is possible?

6) Do you think lots of people are ultimately going to get rich by putting all of their money into something that is, by your account, extremely overvalued? How, exactly, are they making money off of these transactions? Please explain.

7) Which types of oil companies do you think are more efficient, private-sector oil companies or government-owned oil companies? Does your answer support the assertion that the government should be more deeply involved in oil?

8) Please explain how the government should regulate and intevene in global commodity speculation.

[BabydaddyATL]

You seem to know an awful lot about this. Since you're the one with all the answers, why don't you answer a few questions I have about your thoughts on government regulation?

1) How do you expect the government to intervene in the trade decisions of other nations? More wars? My answers are below.

2) You have said repeatedly in this thread that the price of oil does not take into account its many apparent environmental ills. This suggests the price of oil is lower than the socially efficient level. See below.

3) You have said repeatedly in this thread that the greedy behavior of OPEC nations and other "capitalist" entities has inflated the price of oil. This suggests the price of oil is higher than the socially efficient level. See below

Which is it? #2 or #3?
Both, first we double the CAFE regulations in 10 years. We also set 2025 as the last year a car can run on gasoline. Next we add an additional tax on gas to fund research and development into alternative sources of energy. This will serve two purposes, immediately drive the price down substantially and second by tightening our environmental standards lessens the social cost See my comments on OPEC below.

4) If the price of oil has been driven up due to speculation, it is highly likely that the price will fall in the future. Why aren't you investing in futures contracts?
They could keep this market manipulation up for a long time. Just like the mortgage banks that kept the housing market going knowing full and well what they were doing to our country. They went to the point of levels not seen since The Great Depression. The reason I don't buy future contracts is because I have morals. More than I can say for these assholes.

5) If you aren't investing in futures contracts, that means you think the price of oil will stay this high. This implies that the stockpiles of oil will perpetually absorb this excess oil supply and will continue to grow forever. Do you think this is possible? See my morals comments above. Being the market is being manipulated now and I believe the Bush administration is involved in this I don't think anyone can speculate. Manipulation means trading is not based on fundamentals - only insiders and fools invest in manipulated markets.

6) Do you think lots of people are ultimately going to get rich by putting all of their money into something that is, by your account, extremely overvalued? How, exactly, are they making money off of these transactions? Please explain.
You know good and well the really rich people and bankers are the one most profiting right now. They will know when to get out and probably will be unscathed. It's the small investors who are being lied to right now and will be hurt the most.

7) Which types of oil companies do you think are more efficient, private-sector oil companies or government-owned oil companies? Does your answer support the assertion that the government should be more deeply involved in oil?
I ultimately think that the government should own all US oil companies until then, I think they should not be able to crap without the public knowing about it. First, I think all subsidies should be taken away. Second, I think the government set up a regulatory commission that is the watchdog over the oil producers and refiners. If they are manipulating supplies they serve mandatory jail time and heavy penalties.

8) Please explain how the government should regulate and intevene in global commodity speculation. First, slap the biggest fine ever to Goldman Sachs for telling the market that oil would hit $200 a barrel when they know damn well they are lying. Next, we go right down the line of every company connected to the oil industry and start slapping fines or jailing executive who knowingly manipulated the market. Next we set a world forum of all countries and break up OPEC for collusion. We also tighten the rules on who can speculate in oil futures and prevent any analyst covering the oil markets from working for a trading firm.



I have some questions for you now.

1. Do you believe the facts in this article to be correct?

2. Do you believe the Commodity Markets and Oil Companies have manipulated the prices.

3. If you said no to the question above, do believe the Commodity Markets and Oil Companies have the POWER to manipulate the price?

4. Do you believe OPEC is legal?

5. How would you change the system?

6. Is the information contained in this article news to you or have you had a gut feeling that this is how "oil markets" worked?

7. Lastly, do you still believe the supply of oil is constrained?

[testarossa50]

1. Do you believe the facts in this article to be correct?

I believe they are probably correct. That doesn't mean that the analysis is correct or that the selected facts honestly depict reality.

And anyways most of the facts just talked about how much oil is being "stockpiled"--about a day and a half worth of America's consumption, as far as I can tell. Big damned deal.

2. Do you believe the Commodity Markets and Oil Companies have manipulated the prices.

Every firm in every industry tries to manipulate the prices of the goods it sells. The question is whether the oil industry is doing so through collusion. If collusion is taking place, then the United States should prosecute the guilty parties--we have one of the best judicial systems in the world for doing so. I am in no poisition to make a definite judgement about whether collusion is occuring or not (neither are you), but America's preventitive laws are so good that there is cause for skepticism of any claim of collusion. If you want to put some evidence together, then more power to you. I honestly wish you luck.

I don't know whether commodity traders are manipulating prices. How you prohibit people from trading things they own at prices they determine and under contracts they mutually agree to, I'm not so sure.

3. If you said no to the question above, do believe the Commodity Markets and Oil Companies have the POWER to manipulate the price?

Oil companies already addressed. Commodity traders might have that power, but I don't think you have given convincing evidence one way or another. And you didn't answer my question about HOW they are profiting off of manufacturing a commodity bubble.

4. Do you believe OPEC is legal?

I don't see how it wouldn't be, unless they are violating rules from a voluntary organization like the WTO. Remember that we don't have power over what other nations do within their sovereign borders. I'm not fan of OPEC, obviously, but I don't see much we can do (besides rival their capacity by increasing our own).

5. How would you change the system?

Let the changes that are already in play work themselves out. Drill for oil wherever we can and sell it in global markets. Remove any tax hurdles for oil shale extraction. Maintain and defend the tax breaks for hybrids and other alternate fuel vehicles. Encourage more nuclear power plants like the one we are getting in Georgia (hell yeah!) by removing unreasonable regulatory hurdles. And finally: Let this (apparent) price bubble pass (as your article suggests it will) and move on with our lives.

6. Is the information contained in this article news to you or have you had a gut feeling that this is how "oil markets" worked?

It didn't really contain much information about how the "oil market" works, at least that I saw. Certainly nothing particularly groundbreaking. And look, I can find articles that disagree with yours! OMG!

Mr Lopez added: "Opec loves to argue that it's all speculation but we shouldn't overplay that. It's becoming a lame excuse. Speculation is a factor, but it accompanies a trend, it's not setting the trend. This is down to fundamentals."

The only way for speculators to have a persistent effect on oil prices, [Paul Krugman] maintains, is if there is hoarding -- a tightening of supplies. There's no evidence of that. Oil inventories have remained at more or less normal levels throughout the recent run-up in prices.


7. Lastly, do you still believe the supply of oil is constrained?

Of course, the supply of everything is constrained.

[CityFan]

Who owns largest share of gas refinery? Does anyone have info? IMO, gas prices will continue climbing up until there is a substitue.

[MarketsWork]

Adding to the perfect storm this summer are the myriad summer refining recipes that envirowhacko bureaucrats have forced upon us -- and which only add cost and strain availablity. During the summer months, the eeevilll oil companies are not allowed to sell the same gasoline in Atlanta that they can sell in Macon or Columbus or Birmingham. Not surprisingly, pump prices rise right along with the added refining and distribution costs. More government? No thanks!

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by MarketsWork

Adding to the perfect storm this summer are the myriad summer refining recipes that envirowhacko bureaucrats have forced upon us -- and which only add cost and strain availablity. During the summer months, the eeevilll oil companies are not allowed to sell the same gasoline in Atlanta that they can sell in Macon or Columbus or Birmingham. Not surprisingly, pump prices rise right along with the added refining and distribution costs. More government? No thanks!

MarketsWork, did you read the article I posted? Does the writer have his head up his ass or is there meat to this story? Do you feel we are being manipulated? From my perspective, the writer detailed exactly what I thought has been happening, but he used facts whereas I used opinions. I am curious to hear your feedback.

Also, what do you think of my responses to Testarossa? Thanks.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by CityFan

Who owns largest share of gas refinery? Does anyone have info? IMO, gas prices will continue climbing up until there is a substitue.

From the article I posted, this is not about supply and demand. It is about market manipulation. So the only thing that will change is we vote someone into the office that has the balls to take on the oil companies and OPEC.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

And you didn't answer my question about HOW they are profiting off of manufacturing a commodity bubble.

Read This
Bilking Us for $ Hundreds of Billions
by Madis Senner

Hundreds of billions of dollars of personal profits for speculators seems like a reasonable, arguably conservative, estimate. To arrive at this figure you need to make some assumptions and do some calculations.

First, we have to determine the amount of speculative money that is trading oil. The amount of money hedge funds manage is conservatively estimated to be $1.2 trillion according to the Economist, half of which is dedicated to strategies that cannot invest in oil. In 2004 hedged funds controlled $1.0 trillion. So in 2004 we can assume that $500 billion in hedge fund money could trade oil. Barclays PLC estimated that money dedicated to commodity investing totaled $80 billion at the end of 2005 and was probably around $60 billion in 2004. Managed Futures magazine estimated that managed futures (money managed by Commodity Trading Advisors (CTA’s)) amounted to $130 billion in 2004.

If we add these pools of money up we come up with a total of $690 billion in 2004 ($500B Hedge Funds, $60B Commodity Funds, $130B managed futures). No doubt there may be some overlap and there may be some double counting between managed futures and commodity funds. However, there are lots of pools of money and money managed by proprietary traders and trading desks of financial institutions, by the trading desks of oil companies, and others that is not included in that figure. So the $690 billion is probably a fair indication of the pool of speculative money that would have traded energy products.

Since 2004 the price of oil has doubled. If all the speculative money that could have invested in oil ($690B) had invested all of its capital (un-leveraged) in oil they would have doubled their money, or profited by $690 billion.

Many would say no one would bet all their capital on oil. Such thinking would be wrong. Hedge Funds, Commodity Funds and other speculative investment vehicles leverage their portfolios. Since they only have to put down a small amount of margin ($’s) when they buy or sell futures, a fraction of the total amount they control, this means that they can leverage themselves from anywhere to 5 to 20 times the amount of money they manage. For example, one would have to put up less than $10,000 to control $100,000 in oil. Speculators have also been known to engage in renegade (illegal) operations to circumvent margin rules by borrowing from banks such as Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) did and leveraged itself up over 100 times its speculative pool of capital.

Compounding the difficulty in calculating speculative profits is the plethora of investment opportunities for speculators in the energy complex. Speculators can trade in oil, heating oil, gas natural gas, propane on exchanges or can tailor make derivatives. Many of these commodities move in lock-step and influence each other, so the profits for speculators trading in the energy complex overall is much higher. There are also transactions costs, rollover costs and the entry and exit of trades that can all influence returns.

On April 26, 2006 Energy products represented 74.38% of the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI). Crude Oil represented 31.07% and Brent Crude Oil represented 14.83% of the index. So oil represented 45.9% of the GSCI index. Assuming that $690 billion was not leveraged and proportionately invested in commodities on a dollar for dollar basis it would amount to $310 billion (45.9% of $690B) allocated to oil. Since oil doubled since 2004 this would represent a profit of $310 billion.

Of course we are making gross assumptions and ignoring a lot of other things. It also must be remembered that we are looking at the global market and not just the USA market. But it does give a glimpse of the enormous profit potential for speculative funds. In conclusion, it is very reasonable to assume that speculators have made hundreds of billions of dollars from manipulating oil prices higher. This does not include the multiplier effect of punters shenanigans of pushing oil higher--WINDFALL PROFITS FOR OIL/GAS/EXPLORATION COMPANIES, WINDFALL PROFITS FOR OPEC OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES, ETC.

[testarossa50]

That article doesn't explain how anyone is manipulating the price of oil. It just says that people who invested in oil profited massively from it going up in value--a reasonable conclusion.

[testarossa50]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

Both, first we double the CAFE regulations in 10 years. We also set 2025 as the last year a car can run on gasoline. Next we add an additional tax on gas to fund research and development into alternative sources of energy. This will serve two purposes, immediately drive the price down substantially and second by tightening our environmental standards lessens the social cost See my comments on OPEC below.

This would have an absolutely devastating effect on poor people. But at least as poor people are forced to give up their cars you'll get a nice surge in MARTA ridership.

I don't see this lowering prices much, and if it does lower prices you're just going to piss everyone off when you tell them you can't use gasoline anymore. I think the key to solving this issue is to let the markets work and force people to adapt. (As Marketswork points out, our federal government is keeping prices even higher by forcing all of us to use boutique gasoline. Thanks!)

They could keep this market manipulation up for a long time. Just like the mortgage banks that kept the housing market going knowing full and well what they were doing to our country. They went to the point of levels not seen since The Great Depression. The reason I don't buy future contracts is because I have morals. More than I can say for these assholes.

Who is doing this manipulation and how? Also, why is entering into a contract with someone else to sell a product for an agreed upon price at an agreed upon future date immoral? Is it the gambling aspect of it you don't like?

See my morals comments above. Being the market is being manipulated now and I believe the Bush administration is involved in this I don't think anyone can speculate. Manipulation means trading is not based on fundamentals - only insiders and fools invest in manipulated markets.

Please provide some evidence of this claim. It's really, really difficult for speculators to have much impact on oil prices:

Causality tests suggest that speculative activity, as proxied by net non-commercial long positions, does not have a significant impact on spot prices, but it does moderately influence longer-dated futures prices. The results—which should be treated with caution owing to the definitional problems noted above—also suggest that speculative activity follows rather than leads spot prices, as do longer-dated future prices, which supports the argument that changes in the fundamentals affect, via spot prices, perceptions regarding future physical market conditions.

-IMF

You know good and well the really rich people and bankers are the one most profiting right now. They will know when to get out and probably will be unscathed. It's the small investors who are being lied to right now and will be hurt the most.

All those small investors who have been writing futures contracts with their pension funds and 401k's?

I ultimately think that the government should own all US oil companies until then, I think they should not be able to crap without the public knowing about it. First, I think all subsidies should be taken away. Second, I think the government set up a regulatory commission that is the watchdog over the oil producers and refiners. If they are manipulating supplies they serve mandatory jail time and heavy penalties.

Government-owned oil companies are the reason oil costs so much. Private oil companies (ExxonMobil and all the rest) own a tiny fraction of the world's oil reserves--a few percent. Yet they are crucial for global supply. This idea is backwards.

A regulatory commision? Fine. I don't know exactly what they would do, or how this differs from the Department of Energy, but go for it if you can get the power to do so.

First, slap the biggest fine ever to Goldman Sachs for telling the market that oil would hit $200 a barrel when they know damn well they are lying. Next, we go right down the line of every company connected to the oil industry and start slapping fines or jailing executive who knowingly manipulated the market. Next we set a world forum of all countries and break up OPEC for collusion. We also tighten the rules on who can speculate in oil futures and prevent any analyst covering the oil markets from working for a trading firm.

I don't think most of this is legal and/or feasible, but all right.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by testarossa50

That article doesn't explain how anyone is manipulating the price of oil. It just says that people who invested in oil profited massively from it going up in value--a reasonable conclusion.

I read it as saying that they borrowed money on the margin to push the price up. So I think the first thing the government could do is prevent people from buying commodities using margin calls.