Damn the oil speculators........

Message boards : Politics : Damn the oil speculators........
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Profile Dr Imaginario

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 11
Posts: 172
Credit: 22,735
RAC: 0
Portugal
Message 1146718 - Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 15:35:56 UTC - in response to Message 1146714.  

But surely you are not advocating civil disobedience? We just had a taste of tht in the UK.


No not at all, I’m not advocating any type of violence or civil disobedience, I’m just stating a well known fact, is that there is always a breaking point and that most of the times the politicians and corporations are to blind to see or foresee it. Then usually is to late.

Riots, like there was in the UK are never due to only one factor. The real reason for them goes deeper than what was told on the media. Guess that time a sensible fuse was triggered and well I think most of the forum members saw the results.

I sincerely wish that somehow politicians can be smart enough to detect this kind of problems and act proactively in order to avoid such senseless violence.
ID: 1146718 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1146783 - Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 17:56:44 UTC

Tell that to the UK greedy Tax Authorities.

I think we are near that point when the middle will refuse to pay if it goes up much more.

One of the reasons the UK fuel escalator was abandoned was the fuel riots which was about the level of fuel tax ... @75% of the price we pay over here.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1146783 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1146937 - Posted: 29 Aug 2011, 21:11:40 UTC

I wounder if all this is down to this thing called "equality". So to achieve it governments use the tax system in an attempt to deliver it. I don't believe that you can have equality, you can attempt to achieve it artificially by taking from the haves and giving it over to the have-not's. In the end you still end up with inequality, inequality between though's who can produce wealth for themselves and those who can not. The human race has since cave man times thrived on inequality, between though's who can do well for themselves and though's who can not. Inequality is a fact of life and when you attempt to meddle with it then you end up creating an imbalance in the social system that should not be there. People who can not achieve get given rewards above their expectations so see this as an easy life so do not appreciate what they are given. Those who do achieve see this ability of their's get penalised via an unfair taxation system. So today we wounder why the West is loosing out to the East in wealth generation, well it simple to explain isn't it. The East has yet to circum to the West's social equality policies and it will not do for many-many-many years. Because of this the East will continue to adopt social policies of "we help only them who help themselves". Now who do you know operated under these policies in the past when building their countries wealth's up. Lets just name the two biggest ones during their "big" time in history....Britain and the USA. But these two countries have allowed their social consciousnesses to get the better of them and hence produced equality policies that in the end sap their nations wealth. It's happened in the UK and it will eventually happen in the USA too and all it leads to is the nations becoming financially poorer for it in the end.

You can generate social policies that keep the poor of the streets by paying them money at the unfair expense of the working population of that country. But in the end, because the nations wealth gets sapped so much you will inevitably end up with the poor back on the streets again in time.
ID: 1146937 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12268
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1147042 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 0:13:53 UTC - in response to Message 1146614.  

sad but true W actually set in motion the elimination of certain speculation(people that had no oil holdings or businesses involved in any way with oil) on Oil during his last few years in office. It had a nice chilling effect on speculator. Unfortunately, like most pond scum they seem to have found another means to survive off the very thing they were banned from

Really? This does not sound like something George W. Bush would do. Please provide links or some sort of elaboration.
I would think regulating things such as stem cell research was more up his alley.


I was not aware the commodity exchange had stopped listing oil.

How is this a response to my post?
ID: 1147042 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12268
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1147043 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 0:18:30 UTC - in response to Message 1146714.  

The truth is that corporations are doing whatever they want, specially with commodities and with the price of energy. We are paying more for less, this is the truth, and no matter if you are in the US/UK/Australia/Portugal or even Singapore, there will be a time when people will get feed up with a situation, simply because it becomes unbearable.


But surely you are not advocating civil disobedience? We just had a taste of tht in the UK.


Would Gandhi or MLK Jr. accept this as an example of civil disobedience?
ID: 1147043 · Report as offensive
nemesis
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 99
Posts: 1408
Credit: 35,074,350
RAC: 0
Message 1147045 - Posted: 30 Aug 2011, 0:27:09 UTC

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..
ID: 1147045 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12268
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1147302 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 0:18:42 UTC - in response to Message 1147045.  

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..

Maybe I've had my terminology get mxied around over the years, but ... .
I view "disobedience" as a tamer term; i.e., "civil disobedience" implies non-violence. Thus, rioting is not civil disobedience. Rioting is what it is: rioting. But, again, read my first sentence.

Still waiting for Skil's response to my comment and Soft's to my question.
ID: 1147302 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1147358 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 4:24:48 UTC - in response to Message 1147302.  

I recall posting its darn near impossible to find anything that isn't politically motivated about W. I darn sure don't want to spend an evening delving into left and right wing propaganda sites looking for a needle in the internet haystack.

As I said I recall him making some move to quell the speculation. I don't recall if it worked at the time. Clearly we still have a major problem with the big money grab


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1147358 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1147360 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 4:38:25 UTC - in response to Message 1147302.  

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..

Maybe I've had my terminology get mxied around over the years, but ... .
I view "disobedience" as a tamer term; i.e., "civil disobedience" implies non-violence. Thus, rioting is not civil disobedience. Rioting is what it is: rioting. But, again, read my first sentence.

Still waiting for Skil's response to my comment and Soft's to my question.


Quite simply, as long as the commodity market continues, and oil is listed, then speculation on oil by those who have no material interest(i.e. they NEED to buy it or they themselves have it for sale) Continues.

Simply put Dubya never stopped anyone from speculating on oil.
Janice
ID: 1147360 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6667
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1147389 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 6:42:44 UTC

Simply put Dubya never stopped anyone from speculating on oil.

Yep, no one Before Dubya ever Got Rich from Speculation. Yep.

Dubya started it all. Blame Everything on Dubya.

Just like The Duke(Our Present Potus), Dubya As President was Supposed to put Everything Right.

Present Potus Was Supposed to Put Everything Right also.

But The Present Peace Prize Potus has Good Excuses For Not Putting Everything Right.

Them Right Wingers. Yep. Them, Again.

No Matter What Potus is Present. Nothing in The Present or Future is Put Right.

Yep. Nuthin'

I am Null and Void and a Darwin Barnacle.
ID: 1147389 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12268
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1147460 - Posted: 31 Aug 2011, 12:45:50 UTC - in response to Message 1147360.  

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..

Maybe I've had my terminology get mxied around over the years, but ... .
I view "disobedience" as a tamer term; i.e., "civil disobedience" implies non-violence. Thus, rioting is not civil disobedience. Rioting is what it is: rioting. But, again, read my first sentence.

Still waiting for Skil's response to my comment and Soft's to my question.


Quite simply, as long as the commodity market continues, and oil is listed, then speculation on oil by those who have no material interest(i.e. they NEED to buy it or they themselves have it for sale) Continues.

Simply put Dubya never stopped anyone from speculating on oil.


Then it looks like you were responding to Skil, not me.
ID: 1147460 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1147769 - Posted: 1 Sep 2011, 1:32:11 UTC - in response to Message 1147460.  

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..

Maybe I've had my terminology get mxied around over the years, but ... .
I view "disobedience" as a tamer term; i.e., "civil disobedience" implies non-violence. Thus, rioting is not civil disobedience. Rioting is what it is: rioting. But, again, read my first sentence.

Still waiting for Skil's response to my comment and Soft's to my question.


Quite simply, as long as the commodity market continues, and oil is listed, then speculation on oil by those who have no material interest(i.e. they NEED to buy it or they themselves have it for sale) Continues.

Simply put Dubya never stopped anyone from speculating on oil.


Then it looks like you were responding to Skil, not me.


Or you could consider it supportive to your (long ago obscured)post.

Janice
ID: 1147769 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12268
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1148089 - Posted: 2 Sep 2011, 2:22:18 UTC - in response to Message 1147769.  

i think they were into non-violent civil disobedience..

Maybe I've had my terminology get mxied around over the years, but ... .
I view "disobedience" as a tamer term; i.e., "civil disobedience" implies non-violence. Thus, rioting is not civil disobedience. Rioting is what it is: rioting. But, again, read my first sentence.

Still waiting for Skil's response to my comment and Soft's to my question.


Quite simply, as long as the commodity market continues, and oil is listed, then speculation on oil by those who have no material interest(i.e. they NEED to buy it or they themselves have it for sale) Continues.

Simply put Dubya never stopped anyone from speculating on oil.


Then it looks like you were responding to Skil, not me.


Or you could consider it supportive to your (long ago obscured)post.


OK, well, that wasn't clear. But which post? The one questioning Skil's assertion?
ID: 1148089 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1148276 - Posted: 2 Sep 2011, 17:38:08 UTC

Lets just name the two biggest ones during their "big" time in history....Britain and the USA. But these two countries have allowed their social consciousnesses to get the better of them and hence produced equality policies that in the end sap their nations wealth. It's happened in the UK and it will eventually happen in the USA too and all it leads to is the nations becoming financially poorer for it in the end.



I very much disagree with your analysis of social and economic decline.
These are two classic examples of empires which started out with a strong industrial base in their domestic markets which provided both employment and consumer goods for the masses.
In both cases, the capitalists (investors who don't actually work to live) discovered the profit level increase to their investment by no longer producing goods using the workforce within their own country.

The act of shifting from a production based economy to an economy based on financing industry elsewhere in the world is the cause of their decline, not the social programs put in place to help the lesser of their citizens.

I just can't get my head around the ability of some to blame economic downturns on the people with the least influence on the economy.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1148276 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51464
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1148283 - Posted: 2 Sep 2011, 18:08:48 UTC
Last modified: 2 Sep 2011, 18:09:19 UTC

I think my original point was that people who suck money out of the 'pipeline' so to speak, who have nothing at all to do with the production or consumption of the product, simply gain money on paper at the expense of those who actually have a need for the commodity.
And in this case, being oil, which the entire nation depends upon, they are sucking the life blood out of our economy for their own personal gain.
And the lower class folks like myself, who don't have the money to play their games, just end up padding their greedy pockets.

Although I do not support increased government regulation in almost all cases, something that the rise and fall of our nation could depend upon should not be left in the hands of the money changers.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1148283 · Report as offensive
Profile Michael John Hind
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 1330
Credit: 3,632,028
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1148302 - Posted: 2 Sep 2011, 19:05:04 UTC - in response to Message 1148276.  
Last modified: 2 Sep 2011, 19:20:19 UTC

I very much disagree with your analysis of social and economic decline.
These are two classic examples of empires which started out with a strong industrial base in their domestic markets which provided both employment and consumer goods for the masses.
In both cases, the capitalists (investors who don't actually work to live) discovered the profit level increase to their investment by no longer producing goods using the workforce within their own country.

The act of shifting from a production based economy to an economy based on financing industry elsewhere in the world is the cause of their decline, not the social programs put in place to help the lesser of their citizens.

I just can't get my head around the ability of some to blame economic downturns on the people with the least influence on the economy.


The current economic turn down was caused by the everyday Joe public by simply reducing their purchasing. No demand so supply must drop off and in the process jobs get lost. Why they stopped spending then you know as well as I do on this.
As regards shifting from a production based economy to an economy based on financing is totally wrong. As the GDP generated by finance is only about 20% of total UK GDP. The decline in production in the UK is purely down to rise in unit costs and loss of production efficiency. This came about due to several reason which really arn't worth discussing here but it happened. Lack of government spending in the infrastructure of the UK has let this country down appallingly. As this type spending declined so did social spending rise, it's astronomical today.

The people who have the least influence on the economy are the bankers and the financiers. They can only deal with money that has been made, made by the those of least influence (Joe public). Without Joe making the money then the financier and bankers are out of work. Joe has big-big influence on things, when he stops spending then the whole system collapses. This is what has happened today, Joe has stopped spending. Why have banking system nearly collapsed ? because Joe had over-spent taken on loans that he was struggling to finance. Because Joe was eager to spend so the banks saw a way of making loads of money by loaning him more and more. The banks were stupid to have loaned out so much but Joe was stupider for taking on more than he could handle. Joe public have a much greater influence on world economics than people seem to realise so when he went broke so the banks with their high leveraging were surly to follow suit.

Why has both the UK and the USA pumped so much money into their economies in a re-floating exercise that has resulted in nil return in growth. They pumped this money hoping that the banks would loan this money out to Joe. Joe who supposedly has little influence on the economical well being of the country. Well, Joe is all spent out and indebted up to his eye balls so could not take advantage of this new sauce of bank finance. So this flotation of new money instead has ended up in the stock market in search of returns. Yup, the world stock markets are well over priced by as much as 50%, they will fully correct back to their real values in time. But because Joe does have such a big influence on the economics of the country so you can see why governments tried to induce him to spend and get us all out of trouble....and it isn't working.
ID: 1148302 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1148316 - Posted: 2 Sep 2011, 20:06:09 UTC
Last modified: 2 Sep 2011, 20:06:57 UTC

I understood that 12 months ago the Coalition Government was moving to limit the total amount a family could draw from the Social to about £500 per week, including Housing Benefit?

If they did this, with a benefit support to say 4 babies. Then a girl who had a 5th baby would have to cope with the same house (free) and the Social Support limit.

A quick and dirty lesson that the State would help, but help beyond a certain limit means the family has to cope within these financial constraints. This is just like the rest of the normal population in work.

If you cannot afford it, or to fund necessary borrowing, then you do not get the purchase/baby.
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1148316 · Report as offensive
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1148517 - Posted: 3 Sep 2011, 9:34:08 UTC

One where it's grab all by all ... damn those oil speculators
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



ID: 1148517 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Politics : Damn the oil speculators........


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.