McCain, Obama, Iran, and Oil

[Remodeltdt01]

As has been discussed in other threads, there are several reasons gas has been getting more expensive. One of these is that as a a commodity, commodity futures speculators have been driving it up. Any time there's a perceived "problem" with supplies the prices jump.

So I'm wondering something.

Why does Obama & McCain (as well as the current administration) keep rattling their sabers over Iran? They have to know it will just keep the prices up if not make them higher. Are they really concerned about the public's pain at the gas pump?

Maybe Iran is trying to become a member of the nuclear club, maybe they're not. Either way wouldn't a better, more mature policy be "We are very concerned about what is going on in Iran and if elected, I will make it an administration priority to resolve these issues. I will assign a special negotiator that will have the administration's full support in getting a peaceful solution with the Iranian government." (or something like that).

That doesn't mean it couldn't get ugly later, but it should go a long way to keeping the commodity futures market cool.

If we attack Iran $4 a gallon gas will be a fond memory.

[acmanko]

The Oil PACs are spending big bucks to keep the sabres rattleling

[Tool-Slinger]

***********"We are very concerned about what is going on in Iran and if elected, I will make it an administration priority to resolve these issues. I will assign a special negotiator that will have the administration's full support in getting a peaceful solution with the Iranian government." (or something like that).*************

I think that is pretty much what was being said for the last 10 or 12 years. Iran is getting closer to building a bomb, so pressure, and rhetoric, is ratcheting-upwards.

*******If we attack Iran $4 a gallon gas will be a fond memory.*******

If iran gets the nuke-bomb, 4$ a gallon gas will be a fond memory too.

No such thing as an easy answer to this conundrum.

I personally advocate a sneak-attack NOW and just bomb the living-sh1t out of iran and I mean scorched-earth leaving no nuke-facilities no military no govornment and civilian attrition be dammed. Think of it as an elaborated variation of ''shock-and-awe'', to S&A not only the opposition forces but anyone else who would screw with us [USA]. Not to be taking credit for advancing the S&A theory, GhengisKhan or JuliusCeasar would have considered that the normal order of business. The old commanders wrathed victory over their enemies' corpses while the military advantage was in their favor, the new commanders talk of diplomacy and pick lint from their belly-buttons and pop azz-zits and worry about civilian casuaties and european opinion. Were it my call, I would have akmadenijads' head on a stick in the city-square, assuming it is still there, down-town tehran, in about three weeks.

Just one fellows' opinion how it should be done, but thousands of years of warfare back my method.

[Snapperhead]

Some blame speculators , some blame supply n demand . All we know is ... its about money in the end . Period .

If its a supply problem , then why does every gas station have plenty of gas ? ?

[tunnel_rat]

If you think anyone is gonna be able to "negotiate" with Iran, (Yobama) you don't know much about Iran. We need Radio Free Iran more than ever. The people there have much more influence on their leaders than we EVER will. They need to be drop-kicked from the inside. Maybe they're NOT trying to join the nuke club??? :p Yea, and maybe there is a Santa Clause. Do you understand who Iran's "gov't" is? It is not a "president". :rolleyes:


More oil from our own wells sure won't make prices higher. More is better.

[jmac00]

Barak Yomomma has a foreign policy? he developed a foreign policy and now he is going to travel the world trying to figure out what he ment?

The last thing this country needs is a goof that works his foreign policy backward. I mean how can you develop, then announce a foreign policy without ever leaving the country to meet with foreign leaders :rolleyes:

McCain has all ready met with foreign leaders, he's been to Iraq ( a couple of times). He has a foreign policy and has a relationship with foreign leaders for a couple of years.

[Tool-Slinger]

Some blame speculators , some blame supply n demand . All we know is ... its about money in the end . Period .

If its a supply problem , then why does every gas station have plenty of gas ? ?
''''''If its a supply problem , then why does every gas station have plenty of gas ? ?''''''''

Low supply runs-up the price, as it becomes more of a rarity. Available, but more costly. If supply was VERY VERY LOW, then there could be a shortage. But that is part of the beauty of the free-market system, prices ratchet-up with drop in supply so there is *theoretically* never a shortage[outage] in supply, just a rise in cost which reduces demand and helps the available supply meet the current need at market prices.

Now then, president Carter imposed 'price-controls' back in the 1970's and that killed the free-market effect. Then there WERE shortages, gas-pump-lines, and the like. A tad before my time, but I think it came to a rationing situation. It was ugly, but as an availability standpoint, not cost so much because that was 'controlled'.

Based on that s/d theory, then anything that increases supply is good for us[say anwar], and so is anything that decreases demand[say solar].

So Snapperhead, that is your supply/demand economic lesson for the day. I apologise if you did not need it, as your post could be read as sarcastic.:D It seemed like a legitimate question and I have tried my best to answer it.

[jmac00]

''''''If its a supply problem , then why does every gas station have plenty of gas ? ?''''''''

Low supply runs-up the price, as it becomes more of a rarity. Available, but more costly. If supply was VERY VERY LOW, then there could be a shortage. But that is part of the beauty of the free-market system, prices ratchet-up with drop in supply so there is *theoretically* never a shortage[outage] in supply, just a rise in cost which reduces demand and helps the available supply meet the current need at market prices.

Now then, president Carter imposed 'price-controls' back in the 1970's and that killed the free-market effect. Then there WERE shortages, gas-pump-lines, and the like. A tad before my time, but I think it came to a rationing situation. It was ugly, but as an availability standpoint, not cost so much because that was 'controlled'.

Based on that s/d theory, then anything that increases supply is good for us[say anwar], and so is anything that decreases demand[say solar].

So Snapperhead, that is your supply/demand economic lesson for the day. I apologise if you did not need it, as your post could be read as sarcastic.:D It seemed like a legitimate question and I have tried my best to answer it.


supply & demand???????????? BS, commodities Buyying???????? BS

A moth farts in Nigeria and the price at the pump goes up 15¢, The price of a barrel of oil drops 16 dollars in 4 days, the price at the pump doesn't move 1¢............it's all crap:mad:

[Tool-Slinger]

supply & demand???????????? BS, commodities Buyying???????? BS

A moth farts in Nigeria and the price at the pump goes up 15¢, The price of a barrel of oil drops 16 dollars in 4 days, the price at the pump doesn't move 1¢............it's all crap:mad:
You are now referencing the commodities / futures market thing Snapperhead also mentioned. That is a seperate issue from the supply/demand topic.

The 'futures market' is as screwy as anything I have ever tried to understand. You are correct that if ANYTHING happens ANYWHERE then gas prices shoot-up about twenty cents a gallon. I think they are 'buying' oil about 6 months in advance. Todays volume decided, 6 months later prices to be paid whatever the actual market price[supply/demand]. It causes speculation [GUESSING/GAMBLING] There is really something screwy about that...

[jmac00]

as long as this stupidity doesn't carry over to the Captain Morgan Market, I'll make the customer pay the difference ;):D:D:D

But if Capt Morgan starts to go up in price............I'm going on the freaking war path:mad::mad::mad::mad:











:D:D

[acmanko]

whiskey is already 16 dollars or more for a half a gallon. we should be fighting now, if it weren't for all those evangelicals. we could at least have a cheap drink

[crackertech]

whiskey is already 16 dollars or more for a half a gallon. we should be fighting now, if it weren't for all those evangelicals. we could at least have a cheap drink

16 dollars or more for a half a gallon.:eek::eek:

[jmac00]

whiskey is already 16 dollars or more for a half a gallon. we should be fighting now, if it weren't for all those evangelicals. we could at least have a cheap drink

at least whiskey will make you happy, gas never made me happy.......or the old lady :D:o

[The Doctor]

whiskey is already 16 dollars or more for a half a gallon. we should be fighting now, if it weren't for all those evangelicals. we could at least have a cheap drink

I would brew my own corn liquor(isn't it ethanol?), but nowadays if you have a still around here people think you're making meth. :eek: Definitely not!

**********

And Tool-Slinger, you mentioned this "Based on that s/d theory, then anything that increases supply is good for us[say anwar], and so is anything that decreases demand[say solar]."

In response to that statement, we first need to consider how much those supposed goods are propped up by subsidies, tax breaks, and price controls BEFORE we calculate their impact on our market. I only say this because we are not in a free market, but rather a highly-managed or as Alan Greenspan would say a regulated market. How much is too much?
I mean, didn't we buy Alaska from Russia FOR THIS PURPOSE to begin with?

BTW, I'm with you on the scorched earth policy. I want to hear the cry go forth from the countryfolks, that they are so tired of being bombed out of existence that THEY might actually rise up and get rid of (Ahmedinajad) since he won't listen. Make it a glass highway if that's what it takes.

"

[RoBoTeq]

We have already tried the negotiating process only to be blatantly lied to and otherwise spurned by Iran's current government. We have not been able to trust Iran, and them us, since we lost the little control we had over Iranian leadership.

Was the Shah of Iran a bad guy who did nasty, inhumane things to the Iranians who opposed him? Yah, sure seems like there was plenty of proof of that. However, no matter what kind of despot the Shah was, he was our despot. Now; we have no reliable relataionship with Iran. Hell, we supported Saddam Hussein in the war between Iraq and Iran. The sands shift, and we better be able to shift with it.