It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
No it is not, it is due to speculation
In finance, speculation is a financial action that does not promise safety of the initial investment along with the return on the principal sum. Speculation typically involves the lending of money for the purchase of assets, equity or debt but in a manner that has not been given thorough analysis or is deemed to have low margin of safety or a significant risk of the loss of the principal investment. The term, "speculation," which is formally defined as above in Graham and Dodd's 1934 text, Security Analysis, contrasts with the term "investment," which is a financial operation that, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return.
In a financial context, the terms "speculation" and "investment" are actually quite specific. For instance, although the word "investment" is commonly used to mean any act of placing money in a financial vehicle with the intent of producing returns over a period of time, most ventured money—including funds placed in the world's stock markets—is technically not investment, but speculation.
Speculators may rely on an asset appreciating in price due to any of a number of factors that cannot be well enough understood by the speculator to make an investment-quality decision. Some such factors are shifting consumer tastes, fluctuating economic conditions, buyers' changing perceptions of the worth of a stock security, economic factors associated with market timing, the factors associated with solely chart-based analysis, and the many influences over the short-term movement of securities.
There are also some financial vehicles that are, by definition, speculation. For instance, trading commodity futures contracts, such as for oil and gold, is, by definition, speculation. Short selling is also, by definition, speculative.
Financial speculation can involve the trade (buying, holding, selling) and short-selling of stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, collectibles, real estate, derivatives, or any valuable financial instrument to attempt to profit from fluctuations in its price irrespective of its underlying value.
July 10, 2006
One year before he became US Vice President, Dick Cheney told an audience of oil company executives in London that, "y 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day â€¦ While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest production cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by beezzer
You're missing the point beez...you're getting ripped off by the oil companies. If they build new refineries they'll increase their prices to 'cover the costs' of the new refineries. Open up new drilling sites? They'll do the same thing.
$30 billion in profit? Not enough to cover the costs, sorry, you need to pay another dollar per gallon.
Record prices=record profit, there's no external reason for the price increase. They're doing it because they can, it's collusion, conspiracy and price gouging.
You're getting f*d by the corporations and you're still blaming the government.
Sure the oil companies are gouging.
But not opening up drilling won't decrease price either.
Get rid of the EPA wee'ing themselves over every square parcel of land. Open drilling up to new corporations, new businesses, and competition will bring the price down.
Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years ... .
"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu ... said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.
Last fall, before Chu was appointed to the DOE, he advocated for U.S. gas prices to rise in line with European prices. His argument ... was that it would be a smart way to nudge the consumer towards efficient automobiles.
Just as an increase in the quantity of oil decreases the value (i.e. price) of oil, an increase in the quantity of dollars decreases the value of dollars. This means more dollars are required to purchase the same amount of oil. Sellers of oil will demand more dollars for each barrel because the dollars they are receiving buy them less ... . As the Fed pursues a policy of keeping the value of the dollar low relative to other currencies, it’s driving up the price of oil.
So you have Ben Bernanke to thank for some of the sticker shock at the Chevron.
If President Obama is truly concerned about reducing oil prices, ... he should take a look at the policies of his own Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. It’s the Fed’s manipulation of the supply of dollars ... that is responsible for oil and gas prices being as high as they are.
A new report from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform details a disturbing “pattern of evidence” indicating that not only are the Obama administration’s energy policies responsible for higher oil and gas prices, but that the administration’s energy policy, in fact, is higher gas prices.
The report’s findings ... reveal “a pattern of actions [that] shows the Administration is, in fact, pursuing an agenda to raise the price Americans pay for energy.”
In February 2010, the Obama administration quietly and surreptitiously set in place significant regulation and taxation of CO2: "the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)." According to economist Frank Ackerman, “it is the most important number you’ve never heard of.”
Between the middle of 2009 and February 2010, hand-picked members the Council of Economic Advisers, the OMB, the Council on Environmental Quality, National Economic Council, Office of Energy and Climate Change, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the EPA and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Transportation and Treasury — but no outside organizations -- cobbled together, with no public debate, a private "consensus" on how to price carbon in the U.S.
The SCC figure adopted last February is $21per ton of CO2 (about two weeks' use of your car). The value has already been applied to standards for fuel efficiency, and tailpipe emissions. It will be figured into any carbon mitigation strategy, whether cap and trade, cap and dividend or carbon tax.
It has also been applied to new appliance efficiency costs and standards, and is being considered for industrial and power-generation applications as well. The initial rate in the UK was approx. $43/ton; it is now closer to $125. Once imposed, the "creep up" is inevitable.
(Think back to 2009, when OMB was estimating costs of carbon tax -- they "guessed" up to $8,000+/year!)
Have you noticed higher gasolines prices? SCC adds at least $0.20 per gallon!
Has anyone else seen higher electric, heat or food prices?
And, this is when the Feds were warning about deflation. As with everything else about the Obama administration, say one thing, do the opposite!
The catch is that the added costs have been slipped into our regulatory apparatus unannounced and without public debate!
There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby.
President Obama has chosen not to push for a price signal for political reasons. He has opted for using regulations and government funding.
We need revenue to balance the budget. We need sustainable clean-tech jobs. We need less dependence on Mideast oil. And we need to take steps to mitigate climate change — just in case Governor Perry is wrong. The easiest way to do all of this at once is with a gasoline tax or price on carbon. Would you rather cut Social Security and Medicare or pay a little more per gallon of gas and make the country stronger, safer and healthier? It still amazes me that our politicians have the courage to send our citizens to war but not to ask the public that question.
Originally posted by Cuervo
I vote for plan C. Make a deal with China (who leads in green technology) and contractually obligate both nations to finance and build a joint effort infrastructure of completely green power and to subsidize electric autos which, in turn, could be recharged exclusively by solar-powered charge stations.
How can we pay for this? By continuing to drill oil and sell it as export-only. In addition, jack up the price of all the green tech China has the corner on for exporting. This would not only balance out but end up making the US (and China) the next oil (energy) barons. Texas would be the new Saudi Arabia.