Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Countdown to $200 oil (3) - no gas tax needed

by Jerome a Paris Mon May 5th, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM EST

As in previous years, I got my ass whupped in my latest diary on DailyKos on gas taxes. Some commenters kindly called me a "rich elitist fuck" (guilty on all counts, of course) for wanting to bankrupt poor Americans who cannot do without gas, preferably cheap, and are already struggling mightily.

Well, here's the news:


Oil moves above $120 mark

Oil prices hit a record of more than $120 a barrel on Monday, driven by fresh supply disruptions in Nigeria and a growing sense of optimism that the US economy might escape recession.

(...)

Traders are unsure what level oil prices could reach once US oil demand starts to recover. Last month, Chakib Khelil, president of Opec, the oil cartel, warned that prices could reach $200 a barrel and said there would be little the cartel could do about it.

The entire WTI futures curve is trading well above the $100-a-barrel level with the longest dated contract for December 2016 up $1.57 to $110.55 a barrel on Monday, signalling the market's consensus that $100 oil is here to stay.


Oil prices are going in one direction only, and there's a very simple reason for that: market forces.

Market forces say that when demand is growing, prices will go up, which will encourage new supply to be provided, and some demand to be discouraged. But oil is a very atypical market right now:

  • demand is growing in China and other places, as lots of people reach the income level that makes it possible for them to afford cars;
  • demand is growing is oil-producing countries, as the oil bonanza of the recent few years brings them prosperity and massive growth in car ownership and economic activity;
  • a number of countries, including those oil-producing countries that just have to dip in their production to fulfill demand, and many countries that try to support their citizens, further encourage oil demand via price controls or subsidies (their consumers are not subject to market prices and thus are directly unaffacted by them, even if their government are);
  • meanwhile, supply growth, which used to be the easiest way to balance the market in the presence of strong demand growth, is no longer happening. Production has been flat for the past 3 years and there are increasing doubts that it can increase in the coming years. Whether this is because of peak oil, because of lack of investment, or because of political games by oil-rich countries is essentially irrelevant: the fact is that supply is not responding to increasing prices.

With growing, and largely price insensitive, demand on one side, and flat supply on the other, something has to give. Price increases are not the only consequence: they have to bring about market equilibrium. And given the above constraints, it can happen only by causing demand to shrink elsewhere, ie in the US, Europe and the non-emerging parts of the Third World.

Non oil exporting countries in the poorer parts of the world are suffering mightily from higher prices, and limiting their consumption, but the overall volumes are too small to make a big difference. Letting Africa slowly die is not going to be enough,

Thus Europe and the US have to bear the brunt of demand reduction. But here's the problem: our demand is not very elastic either, and we either cannot do with our cars, or are willing to pay a lot more than now for the convenience of driving our cars. But demand must shrink. So what happens?

Well, it's simple: prices have to go high enough to destroy demand. Given that we really don't want to do without our cars, the pain has to be bad enough to actually cause (undesired at lower prices) changes in behavior. Thus, VERY high prices.

One would expect such high prices to also bring online a lot of new supply, including from unexpected sources. It is happening a bit (biofuels being one exemple, coal-to-liquids another), but nowhere near the scale it's needed. It appears that demand destruction in the West is still, at current prices, the easiest way to actually balance the oil market, however unlikely that may seem, and however painful it is for us.

But given that Chinese demand is growing by 5-10% per year, and that Saudi, Iranian or Russian exports are dropping (as their production stagnates and their domestic demand continues to jump), we need to destroy yet more demand each year.

Thus, higher prices will happen. It's inevitable.

Well, there is an alternative, actually: shortages and rationing. Maybe that will create the urgency that the current situation seems unable to yet.

And maybe we'll start having an energy policy that works, rather than one that does nothing and lets the poor gets slowly squeezed with no hope of any solution in sight.

:: ::

Earlier "Countdown to $200 oil" diaries:


See also the Countdown to $100 Oil series.

Display:
Well, demand isn't entirely inelastic:

Ridership on the MBTA surged 6.2 percent in the first three months of 2008 compared with the start of 2007, a spike the general manager today attributed to "scary" gas prices that could help set an annual record for trips on subways, trains, and buses.

The steep increase in customers put the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ahead of other transit systems, which have seen ridership spikes of 2 to 4 percent so far this year, according to Daniel Grabauskas, the MBTA general manager.



you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon May 5th, 2008 at 08:10:51 PM EST
Yeah, same thing's happening in DC, and I think the SEPTA in Philly has seen quite a jump, too.  Probably happening in every major city, although I'm guessing less so in New York, mainly because I believe a such a high percentage already use public transit there.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
All demand elasticities are higher, the longer the market period you are talking about.

The elasticity of demand for gasoline the week following a price increase is very, very low. The elasticity of demand for gasoline a year after a sustained price increase, not quite as low. Five years following the onset of a sustained price increase, it could well be elastic.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 01:47:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
. . . suggests some noticeable driving cutbacks here, too, in the face of gas prices flirting with $4 a gallon.  Not that much yet, but I'd guess that gas at $5 or $6 a gallon should clear the roads of California very nicely, and markedly improve the frequency and efficiency of our bus, subway, and train services--especially given that Americans' wages are not increasing in synch with gas prices.
by keikekaze on Mon May 5th, 2008 at 09:26:19 PM EST
I want to pile on to the "demand is more elastic than you might think" thing:

Automotive trends traditionally don't change nearly as fast as fashions in clothing or music. But as sales of new vehicles in April dropped to their lowest level since the 1992, raw numbers also indicated US consumers were -- at warp speed -- foregoing beloved trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) for mid-sized and compact cars and hybrids with better fuel economy.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZzXFU9nzwVVqt1xYGoJmlVIKAOA
by asdf on Mon May 5th, 2008 at 11:08:48 PM EST
Original data here.

April and year to date, annual change, seasonally NOT adjusted:




Apr 2008 Apr 2007 %Chng. 2008 CYTD 2007 CYTD %Chng.
PASSENGER CARS 658 328 622 873 5.7% 2 389 234 2 409 394 -0.8%
LIGHT TRUCKS 589 989 715 730 -17.6% 2 436 375 2 817 280 -13.5%
TOTAL LIGHT VEHICLE SALES 1 248 317 1 338 603    -6.7% 4 825 609 5 226 674 -7.7%

Seasonally adjusted, annual rates:

                TOTAL    CAR    TRUCK
Apr. '07        16.29    7.36    8.93
May  '07        16.33    8.00    8.33
Jun. '07        15.69    7.63    8.06
Jul. '07        15.28    7.19    8.09
Aug. '07        16.27    7.34    8.93
Sep. '07        16.23    7.45    8.77
Oct. '07        16.08    7.49    8.59
Nov. '07        16.18    7.95    8.23
Dec. '07        16.20    7.82    8.37
Jan. '08        15.33    7.25    8.09
Feb. '08        15.38    7.31    8.06
Mar. '08        15.11    7.51    7.61
Apr. '08        14.46    7.46    7.00


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 04:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So even in April, new SUV and pickup sales are still almost at the level of car sales, while until March and for the year to date, they dominate. Prices still need to rise a lot...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 04:22:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At Kos? Given the way the orange people trend in the primaries I'm surprised. Anyways, a poll conducted this past weekend showed a narrow majority against suspending the gas tax.  Today's NYT also has an article on how there's a gas tax 'holiday' movement at the state level where the taxes tend to be higher. Our own dear beloved Republicans have gotten into the act. Somewhat to my surprise the Dem Assembly speaker has come out strongly against it, if he sticks to his guns that will kill it. From my perspective it sounds like a great idea - this gas price is really killing me... wait a second, I never buy gas.;)  Now just imagine how much less the price of gas would hurt if all major cities in America had the kind of mass transit infrastructure that us New Yorkers have.
by MarekNYC on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 12:59:47 AM EST
I was surprised, too, but I suspect he ran into some of the remaining Clinton supporters, but I could be wrong.  My hope is that Obama opposing the cut in gas taxes will make some of the Kossacks think about the issue and entertain the idea that raising those taxes is a good thing (which was, I think, Jerome's point).  It shot up to the rec list pretty quickly, so there are hopeful signs.

Don't tell people about NY transit, though.  When you tell them that, they start thinking we want to force them all to live in three-square-foot apartments in Manhattan-like places.

I don't think it was a narrow majority in opposition, nationwide.  This was the NYT/CBS poll?  I think it was Against 49%-45% In Favor.  And it was only a 600-voter sample size, so, really, it just looks closely divided (which is kind of sad considering that every economist on the planet, of every political persuasion, said it was a stupid idea).  I'm not sure it's a good poll either.  Obama by 12 points over Clinton?  That's not way out in left field, taking MoE into account, so maybe.  But 11 points over McCain?  I'd love to believe it, of course, and if that's true then St John is going to get slaughtered.  Highly doubtful.  America's not that bright.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 07:46:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't tell people about NY transit, though.  When you tell them that, they start thinking we want to force them all to live in three-square-foot apartments in Manhattan-like places.

Every study I've seen indicates that there is a lot of unsatisfied demand for housing in dense walkable neighbourhoods with mass transit. Most of it isn't for Manhattan levels of density, but even there, far more people would like to live in that kind of environment.  This is reflected in housing prices - compare class normalized per square foot prices in urban neighbourhoods in cities with mass transit and their suburbs. Think of your own neck of the woods - what's the per square foot cost of an apartment in an upper middle class area of DC vs. the same type of area in the burbs. At the extreme you've got run of the mill two bedrooms in Manhattan going for the same price as nice houses in tony inner NYC suburbs.

Or even not class normalized. I live right next to Bedford-Stuyvesant. It's definitely no long the Bed-Stuy of 'do or die' fame, but it's still pretty high crime, has lots of poverty, and has crappy schools. The commute to Midtown is about 30-45 min. A townhouse will run you about a million bucks - for that price you've got a nice large house and yard in a low crime affluent inner suburb with great schools and not much more in commuting time (southern Westchester or the closer parts of suburban Jersey are about 45 min).  One doesn't have to be a market fundamentalist to wonder if the prices are telling us something.

by MarekNYC on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 03:03:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I've seen some actual numbers on it.  Somewhere in the realm of 15-20% of the citizenry lives in such walkable neighborhoods, but about one-third would like to.  Not surprising given the downsizing Baby Boomers and the characteristics we see among Gen-Xers and Millennials.  That obviously points to higher demand in urban and "urban-like" places -- the latter being those kinds of walkable suburbs with "town centers".  And I think we see that with a lot of the new construction being centered on development and redevelopment of urban cores in many of the big cities.  And, as you said, prices are a good bit higher relative to the suburbs.

The prices will settle down as the bubble deflates and more supply is eventually built.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Two points worth noting:

Americans are now paying about 0.60 €/litre for gasoline (yes, 60 euro cents per litre) even cheaper than auto-gas (LPG) here. At such a low price I don't think we can see much demand destruction yet, or that a proper assessment of demand elasticity can be made. On one side it is true that the US has ran an Urban Planing policy for 50 years that took out most of the elasticity on transport fuel demand. But I'm not certain that individuals are left without such options as car-sharing (especially among families) and moving closer to the work place.

A second important note to make is that the Federal tax on diesel is actually higher than on gasoline. This is the most inexplicable energy policy I ever witnessed, for it blatantly fosters energy inefficiency. This fact by itself back Jérôme's (and other folks') proposal of further raising taxes on transport fuel in the US. Making gasoline more expensive than diesel can be an important step towards energy efficiency and independence.


luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 03:50:02 AM EST
But I'm not certain that individuals are left without such options as car-sharing (especially among families) and moving closer to the work place.

Yep. People will take on these inconveniences as required. Hopefully we'll see more four day work weeks, working from home in general, and maybe we'll see a move to a renter society for people that change jobs every five years or less.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the Federal tax on diesel is actually higher than on gasoline. This is the most inexplicable energy policy I ever witnessed

That's because the purpose of the fuel tax in the U.S. is to support roadway construction and maintenance, and traditionally heavy trucks burned diesel fuel and also damaged the roads more. Diesel oil used for off-road purposes (e.g., farm tractors) qualifies for a tax rebate.

by asdf on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some useful talking points vs. Kossacks:

  • Even with gas tax, you would be far from EU levels even a few years ago, and the working poor have cars here too.

  • There's always car-sharing.

  • Gas prices are to rise whatever you do (due to demand growth against limited supplies, as you say above). So why give all that money to the oil majors and furriners? Why not keep some at home and build an alternative from it (e.g. public transport, at least like New York has it)?


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 03:53:20 AM EST
* Partly for similar reasons, in Europe, governments managed to raise gas taxes in the middle of the Second Oil Shock in the early eighties.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 03:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo: Why not keep some at home and build an alternative from it (e.g. public transport, at least like New York has it)?

New York City's buses may be fine, but its subway system, while not useless, is primitive, dirty, inconvenient and unreliable.  Between JFK Airport and the subways, a visitor to that city might think they just arrived in a developing country.  Other countries would be ashamed to have such a decrepit public transport system.

As Tom Friedman recently wrote,

If all Americans could compare Berlin's luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

Tells you instantly what the city thinks about transportation support for the masses -- and the USA as well (assuming NYC has one of the best mass transit systems in the country, though maybe some other cities have already surpassed it.)

A language is a dialect with an army and navy.

by marco on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 05:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
DoDo:
Even with gas tax, you would be far from EU levels even a few years ago, and the working poor have cars here too.

The poor do, but car commuting isn't quite as essential here. It's possible to survive without a car in bigger cities without too much effort.

The US is mostly mall sprawl, so gas isn't discretionary spending.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:48:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, with the Euro down to €1.55, the new WTI crude oil price record spiked higher in Euros: the €77.50/barrel reached topped an old record slightly above €76 a month ago (in dollars: $120.36 superseded $119.93 reached on 28 March).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 04:01:03 AM EST
A little different perspective from Egypt, where petrol is not only not taxed, it's subsidized.

President Mubarak announced last week that civil servants would be getting a 30-percent pay raise to cope with rising food prices.  (Food prices, however, have doubled since January, so 30 percent still ain't cutting it....) Mubarak said in his May Day speech that the budget only had room for a 15 percent increase, but he had sternly instructed his cabinet to "find the resources" enough to pay for the 30 percent.  Mr. Benevolent.

Oh, did I mention that this was done three days before what was supposed to be a general strike over food prices and stagnant wages?  Yeah.

Well, the "strike" flopped on Sunday, and now (Monday) we find out how they propose to pay for it: by cutting fuel subsidies,, raising petrol and diesel prices at the pump.  Except that I'm positive that they wanted to cut the subsidies anyway, and the conveniently timed pay raise is just their excuse for doing so.  They're hoping that shrouding the subsidy cut in a pay raise will avert civil unrest.  (Egyptians don't like having their subsidies cut, and no wonder, given that 40 percent of the country lives on about $2 a day.)

But here's the thing -- the fuel subsidy is really irresponsible.  This is one of the most crowded, most terribly polluted cities on the planet, with some 18 million people and who-knows-how-many cars, probably half of them unroadworthy rattletraps that have been kicked off European roads and re-sold here.  Public transportation exists, but is a disaster.  (The buses literally terrify me.  The subway is great, but really crowded, and it doesn't go anywhere near most of the city.)

So really, Egypt should be encouraging people not to drive, but

And let's be clear what kind of fuel prices we're talking about:  this article (in Arabic) says at the new, higher prices, 95-octane will sell for 2.50 Egyptian pounds, 90 octane for 1.75 Egyptian pounds, and diesel for 1.10 Egyptian pounds.

That's 45 US cents a liter for 95 octane, 32 cents for 90, and 20 cents a liter for diesel.  (Multiply those numbers by four to get the approximate price in gallons.)  Please keep in mind that Egypt is not a major oil producer.  It has some natural gas, but not a lot of oil.  This ain't Kuwait.  (Although this time of year, in my neighborhood, you might not know that.)

This is a dilemma.  Cairo needs fewer vehicles on the streets, it just can't take any more.  Without the fuel subsidies, a lot of people won't be able to afford to drive, or at least drive as much.  But 18 million Egyptians have to get to work somehow, and the public transit system won't cut it.  (Also, the upper class people are terrible snobs, as anywhere, and won't be caught dead even taking a private black-and-white taxi, let alone a bus... and they're the ones least troubled by the fuel-price increase, so they'll still leave the driver sitting outside the coffee shop with the engine running and the A/C on while they're inside getting a latte and a biscotti... assholes.)

Sigh.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 05:07:07 AM EST
Uh, weird sentence fragment there, and I'm not sure exactly what I meant to say.  Maybe something like this?

So really, Egypt should be encouraging people not to drive, but they need to provide better alternatives, because otherwise they just leave people stranded.  Let's not even get into the issue of the satellite cities set up in the desert to alleviate crowding and congestion in the city center; they're moving universities, government ministries, even the Egyptian Museum out there, meaning people will be even more dependent on cars than they are now.

(Hmmm, probably that wasn't what I was planning to write, but that's what came out just now anyway.)

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 05:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Market forces say that when demand is growing, prices will go up, which will encourage new supply to be provided, and some demand to be discouraged. But oil is a very atypical market right now
Haven't you noticed that when people draw a pair of supply and demand curves to illustrate "market forces" they always draw the supply curve growing indefinitely as price increases?

Take the wikipedia article on Supply and Demand, which sports the "representative" diagram to the right. It does include "diminishing returns" in that the price increases faster than linearly with the supply, but the diagram contains no hint that supply might be effectively bounded regardless of the price. If your mental picture of the price elasticity of supply doesn't have a limit to the supply volume, you won't be able to understand what's happening.

In one of my earliest diaries I put together the following chart (the axes are switched with respect to the WP one, unfortunately)

That supply curve displays both economies of scale and diminishing returns as well as a maximum possible rate of supply (it's a logistic curve). With a curve like that you can see that if demand gets too high, then supply becomes nearly independent of price.

Now, that may spurn new investment in production capacity but investment doesn't instantaneaously result in new production. That may be one of the reasons why the 1970's oil crunch was followed by a supply glut and a collapse of prices in the 1980's: it took about 10 years for both demand to adjust to high prices and for supply to increase.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 05:51:35 AM EST
the curve is brilliant....Can we please change the 101 textbooks on economics?

just saying.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't feel bad, Jerome.  Everybody who passed their freshman-year micro is now an elitist, regardless of income or social status.  On the other hand, the guy who called you that is undoubtedly "jes' folk".

I'm reminded of a bumper sticker I once saw on the back of a very "Kerry-fied" car in Tallahassee during the '04 election: "Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church."

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:01:52 AM EST
But prayer comes with so may uses!

AFP: Tired of paying through the nose, Americans try praying at the pump

The half-dozen activists -- Twyman, a former Miss Washington DC, the owner of a small construction company and two volunteers at a local soup kitchen -- joined hands, bowed their heads and intoned a heartfelt prayer.

"Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Twyman said to a chorus of "amens".

"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life... We call on God to intervene in the lives of the selfish, greedy people who are keeping these prices high," Twyman said on the gas station forecourt in a neighborhood of Washington that, like many of its residents, has seen better days.

"Lord, the prices at this pump have gone up since last week. We know that you are able, that you have all the power in the world," he prayed, before former beauty queen Rashida Jolley led the group in a modified version of the spiritual, "We Shall Overcome".

"We'll have lower gas prices, we'll have lower gas prices..." they sang.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are they driving in DC?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are they praying at the punp?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why was Governor "Sonny" Perdue praying for rain in Atlanta, and why was he reelected in a landslide?  Because people are stupid.

But that's my elitist opinion.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe because it rained? Praying for rain has the advantage that it often  seems to work. Praying for low gas prices is another matter....
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:04:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it didn't rain after his prayer vigil.  Which is hilarious, because he -- I think it's fair to say deliberately -- chose to do it on a day when rain was in the forecast.

Nobody, of course, questions whether the Magical Space Daddy was sending Sonny a message with that, though.  When good things happen, all glory goes to God.  When bad things happen, it's the Lawd's will, for he is "testing" us.

Or something.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:09:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why hilarious? It just proves that by picking the day based on the forecast he was demonstrating lack of faith, and God reacted accordingly.

With gas prices the situation gets more complicated. Presumably Ahaminajad, Putin, and Tillerson are all praying for higher gas prices, so God has to decide which of these prayers to listen to...

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I doubt Putin (or the others) would leave that in the hands of God.  He's a bit more, er, pro-active about these things.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 02:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True.  He'd just have God assassinated, or exiled to London (where all non-Iraqi exiles are apparently required to go). ;)

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:34:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
heh, well said, gk!

he with the strongest thought-form wins...

call on godde to turbo your desire, multiverse as giant amplifier of will allocation.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 05:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a "pay as you pray" system...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Reminds me of a scene in the documentary Vernon, Florida (possibly the best flim ever) in which they interview a preacher who says, "I needed a van, so I prayed to God for van.  Then I went and priced vans.  I guess God was trying to tell me it wasn't the right time to buy a van..."  LOL.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
by poemless on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sounds about right for Vernon.  Never been, but I've heard stories.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:37:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I wish I could believe that this story was made up...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]


The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 11:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Note that, as usual, prayer consists in telling an omnipotent god what is going on and asking for intervention. The Lord, sees all, knows all, but is too fucking lazy to register that prices have gone up since last week.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Balckmailing gods (or your god) is one of the most ancient religious practices... it is almost everywhere... and resilent with time..

It certainly must work... either this or it has a very important symbolic relevance :)

A pelasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 11:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is "jes' folk"?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
= just folk

ie ordinary people as compared to presumed elitists.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"They's jes' folk."

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Frat boy millionaires and billionaires, mostly.

The kind of people you'd want to have a beer with, because you understand each other and want the same things.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:39:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And "jes' folk" only applies to white people who live in the middle of nowhere, of course.  As Chris Matthews told us, Latinos/as and blacks aren't "real people".

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:40:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are too sensitive. Most comments on dailykos were friendly. If everybody would agree with your policy advice, your diaries would likely be trivial.

However, you could put more emphasis on compensatory policy advice. Now everybody thinks, extra tax means extra burden, even those people who are just driving an average amount. But it is not about increasing the overall tax burden, so you could present ideas, how to give the money back to the people, so that people who drive less than average could even benefit. This might increase the acceptance among those who are skeptical up to now.

Another issue is of course, why only tax gas, why not heating oil as well?

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:32:56 AM EST
Except that, as I said the other day, we need money to fix our infrastructure and bring down the budget deficit.  And people need to pay for the damage they're doing.  Nobody wants to pay the gas tax, and then they gripe about what awful conditions the roads are in, and they look on in horror at bridges collapsing.  Someone does need to say, at some point, "Cough it up."

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm afraid that bringing down the budget deficit will not convince those people. Especially, it seems some are really close to underwater and have not too much choice. That is exactly the reason why there are people calling it 'elitist' to propose gas tax increases. You think about the future, if you can deal with the present. The credit crisis has made it more expensive for quite a number of people to pay for their mortgage (ARMs are up). Families with low earnings suffer anyhow from higher food and gas prices. Default does not only mean a financial loss, but is associated with a social stigma and the feeling of defeat. Health care costs are going to go up further.
To tell those people you need to invest in better streets and lower budget deficit now (and as somebody who will not be affected), maybe seen as 'elitist' (which is not the same as wrong).

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why the right plan, if you wanted to go that route, would be to give people within certain income limits a rebate/subsidy, and then raise the gas tax on those who can afford it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and the rebate/subsidy could be used on either gasoline or on public transport tickets.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 01:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Like food stamps, but for transport?
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:51:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, except modernized ... with a form of debit card rather than paper voucher, so that there is no stigma attached to using them.

Indeed, establishing the system on the rationale of helping low and moderated income households cope with rising gas prices puts the system in place for addressing regressive impacts of a carbon cap and auction system.

And by having funds that can be used to subsidize public transport ticket makes it much easier for public transport authorities to sell travel passes rather than per trip tickets, for a reduction in ticketing costs and ticketing time overheads. This is especially important given that there will still be need to resort to substantial reliance on electric trolley buses at the bottom level of the transport hierarchy in a policy to establish a network of infill suburban villages amongst the suburban sprawl.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't we use the debit things for food stamps in a lot of states now?  I know FEMA was using them for aide after Katrina.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Debit cards replaced physical coupons several years back ... back when I was still in Oz.

And many recipients prefer the cards to food stamps per se for the reason cited above ... they reduce the stigma of using food assistance.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Sweden, we have a movement for free public transport. Gets rid of fees, gives everyone freedom of movement in the cities, better for environment etc. (Should be noted that in Sweden, public transport is mostly tax financed anyway.) Totally removes stigma of assistance.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... public transport in most of the US.

If we get there, then yes, the case can be made that there are strong reasons to go even further, and instead of subsidizing the auto transport system as we do today, shift that to subsidizing public transport instead.

But as an across the board principle, a level playing field would be such a step forward for public transport in the US, that I'm happy to focus on that at present.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think ridership in Hasselt (Belgium) went up by a factor of around 10 when they introduced this.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But how would you translate the word Wirtschaftsstandort, and the expression den Wirtschaftsstandort schlechtreden into English? (Would be useful for the Europe.Is.Doomed. series.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 08:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wirtschaftsstandort, leo says "business location"
schlechtreden, leo says "badmouth sth."

So I would say:
'The anglo-saxon press badmouths continental Europe as a business location',
but I really have no good feeling for idiomatic English.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:17:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Badmouth, I should have thought of that; but "business location"... It seems a semi-literal translation that covers only a small part of its meaning. If neither a native speaker nor leo nor BEOLINGUS has a good one for Wirtschaftsstandort, there is no real equivalent, especially not a concise one, aint' it?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Though "badmouthing our economy" might work. (And I blame not only the Anglo-Saxon press.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 09:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Trash talks?

"Trash talks the European economy" ... hmmm ...

... I guess in consideration for the pommies, badmouths is probably better.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 01:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am always wrong in almost any prediction i do.. but predicting that the way we will adapt to high oil prices is necessarily thanks to a drastic reduction in car use in the US has been one of my best :)

The US could grow as fast as the Europe or more with a huge reduction in gas consumption... one just needs to change the car fleet, drive less and use/improve the transport system... it will happen...it is our cushion ..it is the only way I see we can keep the economy growing in China, India, South-America, Europe, Middle-east and some parts of Africa with a cosntant supply of oil at around 80-90 mbpd while other transport vectors are implemented.

and that's why the price must reach around 7$ per gallon in the US.

jerome I did the number five years ago but you can crack them now... the saving of a US economy with the same efficeincy that the European..(huge).. and the saving from a US car fleet like the European. Not to mention a US and Europe economy with all the car fleet using the most efficient car.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue May 6th, 2008 at 11:47:31 AM EST
Markets work great... until they don't work once. How much clue the markets have now?

Oil nears $123 on $200 oil prediction, supply concerns - Yahoo! Finance

Oil futures blasted to a new record near $123 a barrel Tuesday, gaining momentum as investors bought on a forecast of much higher prices and on any news hinting at supply shortages. Retail gas prices edged lower, but appear poised to rise to new records of their own in coming weeks.

A new Goldman Sachs prediction that oil prices could rise to $150 to $200 within two years seemed to motivate much of Tuesday's buying, although a falling dollar and increasing concerns about declining crude production in Mexico and Russia contributed, analysts say.

by das monde on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:27:30 AM EST
And so the beginnings of a speculative oil bubble.

Excellent. Exactly what everyone needs.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 07:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As soon as a trend gets established, speculation follows. The only way to contain that is to tighten margin requirements at commodity futures exchanges.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Speculation in futures has little or no effect on the spot market, any more than if I bet you $1000 that oil would be over $150 per bbl by the end of the year.

And if there were games going on in the spot/forward market we'd see the market in a big backwardation.

I don't know what it is, but I feel a bit like the guys in the Western who say: "It's quiet - too quiet..." - and then one of them gets an arrow in the back.

My take is that there's some weird shit going on in the market - it probably involves BP and Goldman Sachs - and it will end in tears before bedtime....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 10:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, briefly, when are futures contracts realized? By "realized" I mean the GAAP sense of completed transaction of the physical product.

Ordinarily, I'd expect possesion would occur as dated, but it occurs to me any one contract could be structured so subordinate lots(?) deliver along a timeline ending at maturity.

Finance gives me gas.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 02:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"backward"  means the futures are lower than the prompt since "normal" = contango is what one expects in a fully supplied market.

Normally the future price of a commod would be the price today + the cost of storage, interest etc etc.  If you can actually achieve that, traders will talk about "full contango".  That's when speculators will really buy and warehouse material since they have a risk free bet (buy prompt, hedge way forward and hope something comes along to make the prompt jump up).

WTI goes off the board roughly the 20th of the month prior.  has to do with pipeline scheduling.  NYMEX products go off the board the last biz day of the month.  Both are physical settles so if you go off long, you get oil in tank at the defined terminals, with the expectation of scheduling an immediate lift from the seller or into the pipe if WTI.

Brent is just a cash settle based on journalists' assessments of the market.  Which is one main reason it's a crap contract.  But since physical brent trades in 500 KB lots it's difficult to make a contract with physical settles.

by HiD on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thank you very much.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Futures prices, not spot prices, are an input into the medium-term planning of firms who are affected by the price of commodities. Also, it would seem that they can change expectations, which should affect spot prices as a second order effect; but I'll take your word for it since you're the one who used to work at a commodities exchange.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 8th, 2008 at 03:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Just look at what Jerome wrote a few weeks ago:
The most striking thing about these graphs is that markets have no clue whatsoever as to where prices will be in the future. In the past, it used to be simple: whatever the short term price, future prices would be around $20, ie markets expected prices to be stable in the long run, whetever the short term variations. Today, they are in effect still clinging to the same formula, ie that prices will go back to some stable level from where they are today - but given that prices keep on increasing, that target can obviously no longer be $20, and given that they have not been stable at any level in the recent past, they are just taking last month's prices as a "safe" bet.

Which simply means that they have no clue.



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 08:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
CERA's Yergin apparently joins those that expect rising prices...


Some See Oil At $150 a Barrel This Year

A growing number of oil-market watchers say voters riled by soaring fuel costs may face far worse this summer, as factors ranging from unrest in Nigeria to slumping production in Russia could shove benchmark oil prices over $150 a barrel.

(...)

(...)

"It's not that the genie is out of the bottle -- it's that 100 genies are out of the bottle," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Normally known for optimistic forecasts of lowering oil prices, Mr. Yergin's firm now says the price could rise to $150 a barrel this year.

The world's diminished spare production capacity remains the strongest single catalyst for high prices, Mr. Yergin says. The world's safety cushion -- the amount of readily available oil that could be pumped in a moment of crisis -- is now around two million barrels a day, according to most estimates. That's just 2.3% of daily demand, and nearly all of the safety cushion is in one country, Saudi Arabia. Everyone else is pretty much pumping all they can, which makes the world vulnerable to political or other shocks.

(...)

"We believe that the current energy crisis may be coming to a head, as a lack of adequate supply growth is becoming apparent," Goldman Sachs said in a note to clients. The bank said oil could hit an average of $200 a barrel next year, a prediction that would have seemed outlandish just months ago.

The U.S. Energy Department now predicts that oil will average $109 a barrel this year, raising its forecast by $9 from last month. The government also raised its prediction for gasoline prices, saying they should peak at an average of $3.73 a gallon on average in June, 13 cents higher than its previous forecast.

Either we'll see a drop, or prices are going to jump massively higher than these forecasts, which will prove to be too "optimistic" (if one things low oil prices are a good thing) as usual.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed May 7th, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]