Pedicted $200 Bar. of oil

[madspaniard]

[boggsman1]

Hey Madspanaird...fast forward to next March....and picture 10 guys peddling out to tomales into 30kt winds with that get-up...ha ha

[madspaniard]

yeah, we'll have our own Tour of Tomales

[gregorvass]

I stand corrected: $220.

In 2001 Gas price was around $2.40 if I remember.

In 1984 Gas was $0.98

Where is all this money going????????????????

REVOLT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[swchandler]

A very interesting chart Gregor. On the surface of things, it appears that anytime something untoward happens in the Middle East, there's a price to pay, at least relative to the price of oil. Why the Bush/Cheney team decided to create a war there appears to have everything to do with price of oil. Of course they didn't get the picture that we're seeing here in the current chart, but no doubt their interests were keyed into the benefits of war in the Middle East.

Surprisingly, you know what their advice is now, let's remove the bans on all coastal areas and other sensitive habitats in Alaska, and go full tilt in drilling for oil. When we need to be more creative with our investments in energy, it's a simple foregone conclusion about what oil inderests would like to do.

Hey, just in time for Bush and Cheney to jump into the pool after all this creative government stuff for the last 7+ years finally pays off big time.

Crazy like foxes (I couldn't resist that one).

[boggsman1]

Hey SWChnadler....read this chilling commentary.
Boggsy

>


Pricing in a Bush Presidency?
New York Times, July 9th 2000
(insert link)

"Stocks sold off again today as the markets is pricing in the likely impact of a George W. Bush presidency.

Since Bush has emerged as the polling leader in March, stocks have been hit hard. The NASDAQ has fallen 37%, while the S&P500 and the Dow are both down 20%, placing equities squarely in bear market territory.

Various Wall Street strategists have expressed concern regarding how a new set of Bush monetary and overseas policies could impact equities.

"My biggest concern is that the promised Bush tax cuts will be in extremely expensive. That would create huge deficits and be extremely inflationary" said Peter Leslie, a trader on the CBOT floor." Governor Bush has promised to reduce captial gains and dividend taxes, and lower the marginal rates on the nation's biggest earners. He has not explained how these tax cuts will be funded.

Maverick Capital fund manager Henry Carlyle is more concerned with government spending than Tax cuts. The Dallas resident stated "I have followed Governor Bush in Texas, and fiscal discipline is not his strong suit." Cabot expects a big increase in federal spending and budget deficits that will have ramifications for both inflation and an interest rates.

Vanguard chief John Bogle is more concerned with a lax regulatory environment: "A return to the sort of crony capitalism that we've seen in the past would wreak havoc with investor confidence. We need a strong SEC to make sure companies are transparent, and report their accounting fully and fairly. We should not throw the individual investor to a wild and woolly free market that is totally lacking in supervision." The Vanguard chief has long been a proponent of a strong regulatory environment for the protection of individual investors. "I do not see that sort of regime under a President Bush."

Robert Rubin, the Treasury Secretary under Presdient Clinton who retired last year to join the Board of Citigroup, focused on the Federal Reserve. "The next president needs to make sure that the Federal Reserve fulfills its obligations as bank supervisor. I am concerned that Governor Bush, as President, would move away from strict regulation of markets for ideological reasons." Rubin, a Democrat, warned of negative repercussions for the housing and financial sectors. "[Since joining Citigroup], I have been looking into the issue of derivatives. This is another area that requires close scrutiny from both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. I see Bush lacking expertise in this crucial area."

Goldman Sachs chief investment strategist Robert Hormat, was even blunter in his assessment of a Bush Presidency: "I am looking for a market crash as a reaction to the election of George W. Bush. Investors should brace themselves for losses of 50% or more -- and even worse in the Tech sector -- should he be elected."

Legendary legendary oil trader T. Boone Pickens is more optimistic. "We should expect several military conflicts in the Middle East under President Bush, and while this may not be great for the economy it will be terrific for my energy holdings." If Bush gets elected, Pickens plans on opening a new oil based hedge fund, and is forecasting 100% increase in the price of oil to $40. "I'm an Oil, George is an Oil man, and his VP DIck Cheney is an Oil man. I expect energy returns to significantly outperform equity markets over the next eight years" he said."

[theq]

It's all just politics. Nobody could have seen this coming...aaahhhhh...except for those guys ...aaahhhh....and the people who have the ability to read the NYT's.

Since I injured my ribs, and have missed a couple of good sailing days, I've found solace in the fact that I also saved $25 in gas. Small consolation, but some at least.

[theq]

[swchandler]

Well Boggsy, a very telling series of insights and predictions. It's uncanny how accurately things have played out over the long haul.

With only a few short months left to endure of the Bush/Cheney administration, I only hope we can get through it without a whole range of possible calamities.

Needless to say, things appear to be worsening. I feel like the country is driving around too fast on bald tires with lots of underlying fabric exposed everywhere.

[mac]

There's a simple reason that the oil men in the White House want to lease all possible property for exploration now. They can sell it cheap; Democrats might solicit bids or look for real royalties or other concessions. Watt did that, solid it cheap, and left a palpable paper trail, when he pursued the Santa Barbara oil leases during the Reagan administration. He used the lowest possible royalty rate, in the face of strong evidence that one particular area would be pretty rich in oil. He did it because he was a true believer (not without some evidence to support his views) that private industry would be a better manager of offshore resources than the government. But the net result is a fire sale, where public resources get sold wholesale to benefit the oil companies (and other resource extraction businesses.) This is how these guys made their money, and that's all they really know. (oopd, George did dabble in baseball when one of Daddys friends offered him a job.)

With that said, I don't have a real problem with developing resources if it is done right. That means, pay for the cost and the damage, keep truly sensitive resources off the market, and so forth. With our complete polarization in politics, neither the enviros nor the oil companies really play it straight. But the fundamental political problem behind off shore oil development (besides time, and that it is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than develop a non-carbon economy) is that the Federal government has kept all of the revenue, and the State's have had to pay for the costs of infrastructure. Fundamental reason behind State opposition. Plus, the oil companies, particularly Exxon, have struggled to avoid shipping oil by pipeline rather than ship, even where that is dramatically safer. Don't look for any realistic accomodation of the legitimate concerns of both sides during silly season!