The American people lose because the ptb in the end will make back at our expense what they are losing now during their attempt to break Russia. Many just don't realize it yet, but it's coming back on us when this is all said and done.
A lot of "noise" about the Saudis wanting to damage US shale oil producers. Far more than Russia, Keystone, etc.
$2.29 reg gal in my area now.
>>
Saudis can only temporarily delay shale producers. They can however assist US in trying to permanently bankrupt Russia. I suspect low oil prices have everything to do with choking Russia and the Saudis are only one of the tools while US shale producers get thrown under the bus.
Alternatively, it could be simple supply and demand causing price changes... naw, that's too simple an explanation, and no one around here has an Occam's razor.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us
<< <i>Alternatively, it could be simple supply and demand causing price changes... naw, that's too simple an explanation, and no one around here has an Occam's razor.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us >>
And then there are those who don't just accept what they are told and dare to ask the question "Why?"
Never let a crisis go to waste and if you don't have one then just create one.
<< <i>Alternatively, it could be simple supply and demand causing price changes... naw, that's too simple an explanation, and no one around here has an Occam's razor.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us >>
Sure it could be simply supply and demand. However, we do know it wasn't supply and demand that sent oil back over $80 in late 2009 when world-wide demand was at 7 year lows; Lowest demand since $20 oil in 2002 and it shot over $80 and stayed there. Hit $110 in 2011 when it should have been $55 based on supply/demand.
I really don't know how legit the Ukrainian election was that placed a pro-Russian premier (or president?) in power, however.......................
My understanding is that the US doesn't want Russia to gain leverage over Europe and a natgas pipeline runs through part of Eastern Ukraine that will allow Russia that leverage. Victoria Nuland says "f**k Europe!" What the heck is that about? Are we trying to alienate all of our former allies? Scratch that question, it's too obvious - yes, we are.
The US also doesn't want Russia to have access to the Mediterranian via Crimea, and somehow - our administration thinks that if there's enough pressure on Russia economically they won't want a deep water port in the Med? Strange behavior on our part.
Also of note - Joe Biden's son is on the Board of the large "free" Ukranian natural gas company. That being the case, I don't see what really differentiates our foreign policy from Russia's foreign policy with respect to Ukraine. Nothing like high-level cronyism that resembles Russian plutocracy more than anything else in the whole world - being played by our own VP's kid.
Except that we didn't kill millions of Ukrainians under Stalin. But now? Who knows the real story here? Who the heck knows? (Not to worry, Russia has re-routed a new natgas pipeline that will nullify the importance of any Ukrainian pipe anyhow.)
How does Ukraine play into the oil price? Well, as far as we know Saudi is still playing our game to pump more oil and thereby put the screws to Russia. Probably some degree of tit for tat over the usual security/protection vs. oil scheme that's been in play since Kissinger put it in play. And hey, if a Saudi gusher helps put a few of the high-cost US producers out of business, it's really no skin off their noses, is it?
Let's also not forget that the Bush clan is pretty tight with the Saudis as well. Who's been on the visitor's list at the WH lately, I wonder? It's always interesting.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
A lot of "noise" about the Saudis wanting to damage US shale oil producers. Far more than Russia, Keystone, etc.
$2.29 reg gal in my area now.
>>
Saudis can only temporarily delay shale producers. They can however assist US in trying to permanently bankrupt Russia. I suspect low oil prices have everything to do with choking Russia and the Saudis are only one of the tools while US shale producers get thrown under the bus. >>
Maybe that's why earlier this week Putin personally appeared at the New Delhi Diamond Conference...to trade Russia's diamonds for rupees.... I didn't realize that 1/3 of the world's diamonds are in Mother Russia. He also negotiated with Modi to build a Russian nuke plant somewhere in India.
Putin stayed at the hotel we layover in...the ITC Mauraya. Security was nuts. The place was crawling with "KGB" at breakfast. Russian conversation drowned out the locals. I spoke with one "agent" to pass along a breakfast invitation to Vlad. I didn't say that it was from "comrade renski." He probably would've laughed before he shot me.
My wifes business uses about 1000 gallons of diesel per week. Diesel is down about a buck per gallon. You think she cares who, what, or why? Shes just counting the benjamins.
<< <i>Putin stayed at the hotel we layover in...the ITC Mauraya. Security was nuts. The place was crawling with "KGB" at breakfast. Russian conversation drowned out the locals. I spoke with one "agent" to pass along a breakfast invitation to Vlad. I didn't say that it was from "comrade renski." He probably would've laughed before he shot me. >>
.......If you had Verushka with you, you would been ok!
Wow, Schiff is (mostly) capable of rational and coherent thought. Perhaps a few misguided perceptions, namely the thought of low oil keeping the US out of recession (low oil was a benefit of the recession, not a factor in its development), but otherwise the blog was refreshing in that he refrained from hyperbole and emotional reaction.
<< <i>Wow, Schiff is (mostly) capable of rational and coherent thought. Perhaps a few misguided perceptions, namely the thought of low oil keeping the US out of recession (low oil was a benefit of the recession, not a factor in its development), but otherwise the blog was refreshing in that he refrained from hyperbole and emotional reaction. >>
Yep, he is a tad passionate about his gold. Recently read an interview with him that he regrets not taking money off the table with the last gold run-up and will do so the next time.
One argument for lower oil helping fight off a recession is its role in lowering industrial production/distribution costs thus increasing the staying power of a business.
ConocoPhillips has already cut their planned spending for 2015 by 20%. So, far that's the only report I've heard about, but I have no doubt we will see more projects being mothballed or scaled back this next year. None of my other customers have made any hints of cancelling any orders that are already in place. We shall see.
The larger problem that I keep reading about that relates to oil in the US is that much of the financing has been done with junk bonds and that there's another economic blowup brewing because of the nature of these junk bond deals.
I wonder if this could be the reason that this new spending bill contained provisions to put bank depositors on the hook for banking derivative positions that suddenly go bad, instead of having FDIC on the hook for them? Or having the bank officers be accountable?
Stay tuned, this episode isn't even half over.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
"Yep, he is a tad passionate about his gold. Recently read an interview with him that he regrets not taking money off the table with the last gold run-up and will do so the next time."
Describes many here no doubt!
Successful trades/buys/sells with gdavis70, adriana, wondercoin, Weiss, nibanny, IrishMike, commoncents05, pf70collector, kyleknap, barefootjuan, coindeuce, WhiteTornado, Nefprollc, ajw, JamesM, PCcoins, slinc, coindudeonebay,beernuts, and many more
low oil prices will be with us for a while. Those that took it down failed to realize that deflation will keep it down. Now it becomes another price for the FED to try to inflate.
<< <i>The larger problem that I keep reading about that relates to oil in the US is that much of the financing has been done with junk bonds and that there's another economic blowup brewing because of the nature of these junk bond deals. I wonder if this could be the reason that this new spending bill contained provisions to put bank depositors on the hook for banking derivative positions that suddenly go bad, instead of having FDIC on the hook for them? Or having the bank officers be accountable? >>
New spending bill puts TAXPAYERS (via underfinanced FDIC) on the hook for derivatives. In a round about way depositor bail-ins will likely play a role if the bank nears failure.
The Russell 2000 index (small caps) is now down for the year, partly from the smaller oil related stocks tanking. Still up 3.18% year on year but down .81% for 2014.
Glicker, if you keep changing the OP, am I supposed to start changing all of the comments that I've been making? It invalidates a lot when the original post keeps changing. Just sayin'.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Glicker, if you keep changing the OP, am I supposed to start changing all of the comments that I've been making? It invalidates a lot when the original post keeps changing. Just sayin'. >>
Maybe we can timestamp the hourly WTI quote on each response.
<< <i>low oil prices will be with us for a while. Those that took it down failed to realize that deflation will keep it down. Now it becomes another price for the FED to try to inflate. >>
Gee, whoodathunk?
How about those that kept it high failed to realize it was too high?
The US economy loses. According to John Mauldin "Texas has been home to 40% of all new jobs created since June 2009. In 2013, the city of Houston had more housing starts than all of California. Much, though not all, of that growth is due directly to oil. In recent years, America’s oil & gas boom has added $300–$400 billion annually to the economy – without this contribution, GDP growth would have been negative and the nation would have continued to be in recession.The shale oil & gas revolution has been the nation’s biggest single creator of solid, middle-class jobs – throughout the economy, from construction to services to information technology."
<< <i>The US economy loses. According to John Mauldin "Texas has been home to 40% of all new jobs created since June 2009. In 2013, the city of Houston had more housing starts than all of California. Much, though not all, of that growth is due directly to oil. In recent years, America’s oil & gas boom has added $300–$400 billion annually to the economy – without this contribution, GDP growth would have been negative and the nation would have continued to be in recession.The shale oil & gas revolution has been the nation’s biggest single creator of solid, middle-class jobs – throughout the economy, from construction to services to information technology."
I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite?
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. >>
Agree with you Baley. As we are still large net importers, any price decline is a plus to the US economy. Concerns though are sharp price moves in an overleveraged economy. Had to be some huge losses on the paper contacts. It will all shake out soon enough.
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down.
I remember when the price of gas shot up to close to $5 a few years ago. The price of food, etc seemed to change overnight. When the price settled closer to $3, the prices did not go down. I guess they figure we are used to paying it so they can keep on charging it....which is not far from the truth.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite?
There's nothing wrong with your observations, as far as you took them. The unknown is how many companies or investments are in trouble because of leverage, and once these positions are called in, how much cascading will happen when people want out of their speculative positions. I don't think that we know what's going to happen, quite yet.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
There's a LONG list of items that should be cheaper so that the economy benefits. Many are made by union workers. A great example is new autos. Every vehicle in America would be cheaper if vehicles were not subject to "protective" tariffs and import restrictions.
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down. >>
We might save 35-40 per month but that won't change spending habits. Credit Union.
<< <i>I remember when the price of gas shot up to close to $5 a few years ago. The price of food, etc seemed to change overnight. When the price settled closer to $3, the prices did not go down. I guess they figure we are used to paying it so they can keep on charging it....which is not far from the truth. >>
Not seeing any price reductions either, aside from the pump. Competition has narrowed significantly in the market place. Exception might be groceries but outside of certain commodity based staples, prices have not softened from what I can see.
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down. >>
We might save 35-40 per month but that won't change spending habits. Bank. >>
What kind of car do you drive ?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
If gasoline has declined by 1/3rd, then that means their average driver would have spent $3000/yr, or $250/month. I find it hard to believe the average person drops $250/month.... so households with man, wife, and a young driver drop $750/month on average? Sounds iffy to me.
The unknown is how many companies or investments are in trouble because of leverage, and once these positions are called in, how much cascading will happen when people want out of their speculative positions. I don't think that we know what's going to happen, quite yet.
Well, that depends on the particular amount of leverage, the timing, and just how "speculative" (risky) the investments were, and the actions taken once they're "in trouble"
smart folks hedge, such that some unforeseen change in circumstances, outlook, or fundamentals underlying their beliefs don't cause catastrophic and unrecoverable losses
Those overextended when the tide changes pay the prices, it doesn't matter what the details are, if a business or portfolio can't withstand the perfect storm or "worst case" then it will suffer, relative to those betting the other way in that case, or covering more of the spots on the board, generally
<< <i>If gasoline has declined by 1/3rd, then that means their average driver would have spent $3000/yr, or $250/month. I find it hard to believe the average person drops $250/month.... so households with man, wife, and a young driver drop $750/month on average? Sounds iffy to me. >>
Well, as always, "it depends"... cohodk's wife uses a thousand gallons of diesel a week. My wife burns about two gallons of regular unleaded a week.
Who do you think saves more when fuel prices decline?
We can talk about the average commute, or the distance of long haul truckers. My point is that every driver HAS to use fuel saves some money when prices drop, and the more they HAVE TO use, the more money they save, which will flow, in the aggregate, in other directions in the economy, and that's generally good for most folks.
<< <i>Those overextended when the tide changes pay the prices, it doesn't matter what the details are, if a business or portfolio can't withstand the perfect storm or "worst case" then it will suffer, relative to those betting the other way in that case, or covering more of the spots on the board, generally >>
That was generally true in the world of old, stuffy economics. Today the taxpayer eats the cost of greed, stupidity and general risk.
Comments
<< <i>$56. >>
A lot of "noise" about the Saudis wanting to damage US shale oil producers. Far more than Russia, Keystone, etc.
$2.29 reg gal in my area now.
<< <i>
<< <i>$56. >>
A lot of "noise" about the Saudis wanting to damage US shale oil producers. Far more than Russia, Keystone, etc.
$2.29 reg gal in my area now.
Saudis can only temporarily delay shale producers. They can however assist US in trying to permanently bankrupt Russia. I suspect low oil prices have everything to do with choking Russia and the Saudis are only one of the tools while US shale producers get thrown under the bus.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Alternatively, it could be simple supply and demand causing price changes... naw, that's too simple an explanation, and no one around here has an Occam's razor.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us >>
And then there are those who don't just accept what they are told and dare to ask the question "Why?"
Never let a crisis go to waste and if you don't have one then just create one.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>Alternatively, it could be simple supply and demand causing price changes... naw, that's too simple an explanation, and no one around here has an Occam's razor.
We boo high oil prices and we boo low oil prices because we're a bunch of boo birds and there's no such thing as good news, not when all "them" PTBs are out to get us >>
Sure it could be simply supply and demand. However, we do know it wasn't supply and demand that sent oil back over $80 in late 2009 when world-wide demand was at 7 year lows; Lowest demand since $20 oil in 2002 and it shot over $80 and stayed there. Hit $110 in 2011 when it should have been $55 based on supply/demand.
My understanding is that the US doesn't want Russia to gain leverage over Europe and a natgas pipeline runs through part of Eastern Ukraine that will allow Russia that leverage. Victoria Nuland says "f**k Europe!" What the heck is that about? Are we trying to alienate all of our former allies? Scratch that question, it's too obvious - yes, we are.
The US also doesn't want Russia to have access to the Mediterranian via Crimea, and somehow - our administration thinks that if there's enough pressure on Russia economically they won't want a deep water port in the Med? Strange behavior on our part.
Also of note - Joe Biden's son is on the Board of the large "free" Ukranian natural gas company. That being the case, I don't see what really differentiates our foreign policy from Russia's foreign policy with respect to Ukraine. Nothing like high-level cronyism that resembles Russian plutocracy more than anything else in the whole world - being played by our own VP's kid.
Except that we didn't kill millions of Ukrainians under Stalin. But now? Who knows the real story here? Who the heck knows? (Not to worry, Russia has re-routed a new natgas pipeline that will nullify the importance of any Ukrainian pipe anyhow.)
How does Ukraine play into the oil price? Well, as far as we know Saudi is still playing our game to pump more oil and thereby put the screws to Russia. Probably some degree of tit for tat over the usual security/protection vs. oil scheme that's been in play since Kissinger put it in play. And hey, if a Saudi gusher helps put a few of the high-cost US producers out of business, it's really no skin off their noses, is it?
Let's also not forget that the Bush clan is pretty tight with the Saudis as well. Who's been on the visitor's list at the WH lately, I wonder? It's always interesting.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>$56. >>
A lot of "noise" about the Saudis wanting to damage US shale oil producers. Far more than Russia, Keystone, etc.
$2.29 reg gal in my area now.
Saudis can only temporarily delay shale producers. They can however assist US in trying to permanently bankrupt Russia. I suspect low oil prices have everything to do with choking Russia and the Saudis are only one of the tools while US shale producers get thrown under the bus. >>
Maybe that's why earlier this week Putin personally appeared at the New Delhi Diamond Conference...to trade Russia's diamonds for rupees.... I didn't realize that 1/3 of the world's diamonds are in Mother Russia. He also negotiated with Modi to build a Russian nuke plant somewhere in India.
Putin stayed at the hotel we layover in...the ITC Mauraya. Security was nuts. The place was crawling with "KGB" at breakfast. Russian conversation drowned out the locals. I spoke with one "agent" to pass along a breakfast invitation to Vlad. I didn't say that it was from "comrade renski." He probably would've laughed before he shot me.
////
comrade renski walked on Putin's red carpet.
And I went long oil on Friday....so far so good.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Putin stayed at the hotel we layover in...the ITC Mauraya. Security was nuts. The place was crawling with "KGB" at breakfast. Russian conversation drowned out the locals. I spoke with one "agent" to pass along a breakfast invitation to Vlad. I didn't say that it was from "comrade renski." He probably would've laughed before he shot me. >>
.......If you had Verushka with you, you would been ok!
Peter Schiff weighs in on oil decline
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Wow, Schiff is (mostly) capable of rational and coherent thought. Perhaps a few misguided perceptions, namely the thought of low oil keeping the US out of recession (low oil was a benefit of the recession, not a factor in its development), but otherwise the blog was refreshing in that he refrained from hyperbole and emotional reaction. >>
Yep, he is a tad passionate about his gold. Recently read an interview with him that he regrets not taking money off the table with the last gold run-up and will do so the next time.
One argument for lower oil helping fight off a recession is its role in lowering industrial production/distribution costs thus increasing the staying power of a business.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
The larger problem that I keep reading about that relates to oil in the US is that much of the financing has been done with junk bonds and that there's another economic blowup brewing because of the nature of these junk bond deals.
I wonder if this could be the reason that this new spending bill contained provisions to put bank depositors on the hook for banking derivative positions that suddenly go bad, instead of having FDIC on the hook for them? Or having the bank officers be accountable?
Stay tuned, this episode isn't even half over.
I knew it would happen.
Describes many here no doubt!
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>The larger problem that I keep reading about that relates to oil in the US is that much of the financing has been done with junk bonds and that there's another economic blowup brewing because of the nature of these junk bond deals. I wonder if this could be the reason that this new spending bill contained provisions to put bank depositors on the hook for banking derivative positions that suddenly go bad, instead of having FDIC on the hook for them? Or having the bank officers be accountable? >>
New spending bill puts TAXPAYERS (via underfinanced FDIC) on the hook for derivatives. In a round about way depositor bail-ins will likely play a role if the bank nears failure.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
Still up 3.18% year on year but down .81% for 2014.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Glicker, if you keep changing the OP, am I supposed to start changing all of the comments that I've been making? It invalidates a lot when the original post keeps changing. Just sayin'. >>
Maybe we can timestamp the hourly WTI quote on each response.
Fair enough, I will desist.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>You've been driving me nuts, man.
Why, the body of the opening post has remained the same. Only adjusting for market pricing.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>low oil prices will be with us for a while. Those that took it down failed to realize that deflation will keep it down. Now it becomes another price for the FED to try to inflate. >>
Gee, whoodathunk?
How about those that kept it high failed to realize it was too high?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>What comes after a deflationary crash? >>
Abolition of the Fed and a return to a free enterprise system, of course.
Just like in 1929.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>I am going bowling. I'll just plug in 163 for every game as that is my average. >>
You are a good bowler.
<< <i>What comes after a deflationary crash? >>
Inflation, ie, OPPORTUNITY.
Just think. After everything crashes 90% we can enjoy 1000% inflation.......getting us back to where we are today. Whoohoo!!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Oil, Employment and Growth - John Mauldin
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
<< <i>The US economy loses. According to John Mauldin "Texas has been home to 40% of all new jobs created since June 2009. In 2013, the city of Houston had more housing starts than all of California. Much, though not all, of that growth is due directly to oil. In recent years, America’s oil & gas boom has added $300–$400 billion annually to the economy – without this contribution, GDP growth would have been negative and the nation would have continued to be in recession.The shale oil & gas revolution has been the nation’s biggest single creator of solid, middle-class jobs – throughout the economy, from construction to services to information technology."
Oil, Employment and Growth - John Mauldin >>
I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. >>
Agree with you Baley. As we are still large net importers, any price decline is a plus to the US economy. Concerns though are sharp price moves in an overleveraged economy. Had to be some huge losses on the paper contacts. It will all shake out soon enough.
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down.
Economic headlines the mainstream media are hiding from you.
There's nothing wrong with your observations, as far as you took them. The unknown is how many companies or investments are in trouble because of leverage, and once these positions are called in, how much cascading will happen when people want out of their speculative positions. I don't think that we know what's going to happen, quite yet.
I knew it would happen.
Where does it end?
Reduction of debt makes room for increased consumption in the future.
Airlines are under no obligation to lower prices and will not realize huge savings immediately because they are hedged at much higher prices.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down. >>
We might save 35-40 per month but that won't change spending habits. Credit Union.
<< <i>I remember when the price of gas shot up to close to $5 a few years ago. The price of food, etc seemed to change overnight. When the price settled closer to $3, the prices did not go down. I guess they figure we are used to paying it so they can keep on charging it....which is not far from the truth. >>
Not seeing any price reductions either, aside from the pump. Competition has narrowed significantly in the market place. Exception might be groceries but outside of certain commodity based staples, prices have not softened from what I can see.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I'd generally disagree that "The US economy loses" due to lower oil prices. I believe that lower oil prices are a NET positive for the US economy. Sure, the oil and gas boom people and places will seem to lose, but they've been big winners for years so it's more of a normalization. So many more Americans use gasoline and other oil products, and lower prices will have a real impact on their finances. Think about it: very high oil prices make most everything more expensive and are inflationary.. how can lower oil prices not be the opposite? >>
I suspect you over estimate the actual gasoline savings to the American consumer. While production costs do see a savings, not much of it gets passed on to the consumer by most businesses, many of whom have not been able to previously raise prices because of a dragging economy. Airlines are seeing a $12B annual savings in fuel. Recent ticket price to my favorite destination has not changed.
Reports are that most of the fuel savings being realized by consumers is being used to pay down debt, not increase consumption. Just how much do you think the average consumer is saving each month on gasoline? If Mauldin's oil industry jobs numbers are anywhere near correct, the US economy is facing a major slow down. >>
We might save 35-40 per month but that won't change spending habits. Bank. >>
What kind of car do you drive ?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Well, that depends on the particular amount of leverage, the timing, and just how "speculative" (risky) the investments were, and the actions taken once they're "in trouble"
smart folks hedge, such that some unforeseen change in circumstances, outlook, or fundamentals underlying their beliefs don't cause catastrophic and unrecoverable losses
Those overextended when the tide changes pay the prices, it doesn't matter what the details are, if a business or portfolio can't withstand the perfect storm or "worst case" then it will suffer, relative to those betting the other way in that case, or covering more of the spots on the board, generally
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>If gasoline has declined by 1/3rd, then that means their average driver would have spent $3000/yr, or $250/month. I find it hard to believe the average person drops $250/month.... so households with man, wife, and a young driver drop $750/month on average? Sounds iffy to me. >>
Well, as always, "it depends"... cohodk's wife uses a thousand gallons of diesel a week. My wife burns about two gallons of regular unleaded a week.
Who do you think saves more when fuel prices decline?
We can talk about the average commute, or the distance of long haul truckers. My point is that every driver HAS to use fuel saves some money when prices drop, and the more they HAVE TO use, the more money they save, which will flow, in the aggregate, in other directions in the economy, and that's generally good for most folks.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Those overextended when the tide changes pay the prices, it doesn't matter what the details are, if a business or portfolio can't withstand the perfect storm or "worst case" then it will suffer, relative to those betting the other way in that case, or covering more of the spots on the board, generally >>
That was generally true in the world of old, stuffy economics. Today the taxpayer eats the cost of greed, stupidity and general risk.