Crude oil hits $62 bucks

Grumpy · #1 05-20-2009, 02:45 PM

62 bucks a barrel. Highest since Nov of last year. This will not be good for the Auto industry nor us.

Sandy G · #2 05-20-2009, 02:56 PM

Typical run-up during the summer driving season. Plus, its the time to switch over to "summer blend" gas as required by the EPA. Has anyone ever asked the impertinent question if any of the forty-eleven different "blends" of gas the EPA requires actually do any good beyond making the oil companies more money ? I realise that questioning the EPA is almost tantamount to wanting to peak under Mother Teresa's skirt, since the EPA is sancrosanct & beyond questioning, defending the ENVIRONMENT like they do & all, but I'm just curious. Remember, kiddies, the EPA IS a creation of the Imperial Federal Government, & I don't think they are any better than any other branch thereof...

merrylander · #3 05-20-2009, 02:58 PM

So what have you got against the Extra Phoney A**holes?

Charles · #4 05-20-2009, 04:47 PM

Well, the Treasury and the Fed are printing money like there's no tomorrow. The basic rule of supply and demand, the more of something you have, the less it's worth. And the dollar is falling at this moment, so the less a dollar is worth, the more of them that it's going to take to buy a barrel of oil.

To drive the point home, let me tell you a story about peanuts. I'll try to keep it short.

Back in the 80's when I was reduced to working as a miserable guard at MSP, there was an oversupply of peanuts. Now you must understand that everything in the joint is currency for the con's, cigarettes, dope, the home made bread that they claimed us screws put saltpeter in (I thought it was pretty tasty), and even the lowly peanut.

The USDA had an oversupply of peanuts. So they started giving them to the con's. Came in gallon cans, with the USDA stamp on the sides, and there was no end to the supply.

When they first started passing them out, the con's were hoarding them. It wasn't long before every cell had probably 10 gallons of peanuts in it. It got so bad that the con's were leaving big bowels of peanuts in the office for us screws (and they hated our guts), just because they had so damn many peanuts that they were worthless.

I was working as a rover one night, and we were searching the garbage behind the kitchen. And right in the middle of all of that garbage was a 55 gallon barrel full of, you guessed it, peanuts. They had so many peanuts that they were throwing them away by the barrel. I learned something that night.

I came to the conclusion that if you wanted to win the War on Drugs, just give everybody a 55 gallon barrel full of dope. Whatever they want. Then give 'em some more. After a while, the one's who didn't OD would get tired of it. Besides, it would be worthless, since everywhere you looked there was a barrel of dope. On top of that, you would run the cartels and dealers out of business.

Kind of the same thing is happening to our currency. Now that doesn't mean the the Government, speculators, and the oil companies don't stick you when they have a chance, even if they have to create one. They will.

But to be fair to the oil companies, they are the only one's who are actually producing anything. And they are making less on a gallon of gas than the FED Gov.

But who asked me, huh
Chas

soundhound · #5 05-20-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy G

tantamount to wanting to peak under Mother Teresa's skirt

awesome metaphor dude!

cabinover · #6 05-21-2009, 04:57 AM

While listening to the radio the other day there was a guy talking about oil. He watches all of the oil stocks, like ships full of it and land supply stockpiles. According to him by the end of June every place to store oil will be full as it's still being pumped out faster than used.

YMMV

Sandy G · #7 05-21-2009, 06:07 AM

"Extra Phony @ssholes"...Yep, that about sums it up, Rob...IIRC, the EPA was specifically FORBIDDEN by Congress to justify any of their demands by even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis...In other words, if an EPA bureaucrat "felt" some regulation was needed, all he/she/it had to do was simply propose it, & thy will be done. Granted, a great deal of their work-at least in the beginning-was SORELY needed, but like any other bureaucracy, they have grown way too powerful, some of their demands are counterproductive, & the amount of money spent doesn't justify the meager results achieved. Again, though, if you have the temerity to QUESTION their agenda, their supporters run a picture of a cute little girl, resplendent in curls, pinafore & petticoat, playing next to a babbling brook, w/Bambi demurely stepping down to get a drink, birds tweeting joyously in the background, & you are accused of wanting to stop THAT...And go back to 1960s Cleveland, when Lake Erie caught on fire...

merrylander · #8 05-21-2009, 07:31 AM

I would not worry too much about the EPA, they have been sound asleep for the last 12 years.

Charles · #9 05-21-2009, 05:40 PM

"Extra Phony @ssholes"...Yep, that about sums it up, Rob...IIRC, the EPA was specifically FORBIDDEN by Congress to justify any of their demands by even the most rudimentary cost/benefit analysis...In other words, if an EPA bureaucrat "felt" some regulation was needed, all he/she/it had to do was simply propose it, & thy will be done. Granted, a great deal of their work-at least in the beginning-was SORELY needed, but like any other bureaucracy, they have grown way too powerful, some of their demands are counterproductive, & the amount of money spent doesn't justify the meager results achieved. Again, though, if you have the temerity to QUESTION their agenda, their supporters run a picture of a cute little girl, resplendent in curls, pinafore & petticoat, playing next to a babbling brook, w/Bambi demurely stepping down to get a drink, birds tweeting joyously in the background, & you are accused of wanting to stop THAT...And go back to 1960s Cleveland, when Lake Erie caught on fire...

The patronage system is a marvelous thing.

I'm with you, Sandy. It really frosts my ass when a Government agency uses out tax revenues to advertise their agenda. I really object to having to pay for them in the first place, much less their propaganda.

But my all time, make you want to cuss, Gubbmitt advertising campaigns, were the one's that the IRS ran back in the '70's or 80's. Remember those, some fat guy in a little sporty car, popping off with something like, "Take every legal deduction, it's your money."

I thought to myself,"Why does the IRS need to advertise? Not like you can go to the IRS across the street, or just refuse to do business with them in the first place".

I know, they were just attempting to paint a smiley face or their sorry asses...but I object to have to pay for it.

Chas

merrylander · #10 05-22-2009, 07:09 AM

Could it possibly be that we have such a sorry-ass bunch in Congress because less than half the elegible voters show up at the polls? Nah, couldn't be.

One serious error on the part of the Framers was allowing Congress to make its own rules, talk about the fox guarding the chicken house.