Contrary To Administration Predictions, Iraq War Contributing To High Oil Prices
Contrary To Administration Predictions, Iraq War Contributing To High Oil Prices
In September 2002, when the price of gas was $1.40 per gallon, White House senior economic adviser Laurence Lindsey predicted regime change in Iraq would lower oil prices:
As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.†But [Bush senior economic adviser Laurence Lindsey] quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.â€
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,†which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.
Today, with the price of gas now around $2.91 per gallon, the Associated Press reports that the Iraq war has contributed to high oil prices:
With oil prices above $70 a barrel fouling the world economy, dismay is focusing on Iraq, whose exports have slipped to their lowest levels since the 2003 invasion.
”Iraq could be making a tremendous difference,” said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi. Instead, its shortfall is ”a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil,” he said.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Add America to Bush’s list of failed business for oil endeavors.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:20 pmWell, “Duh!” Only a neo-con would think the war was going to bring lower oil prices!
April 28th, 2006 at 3:21 pmWell, no crap.
Who in their right mind would think that having pitched battle in a country would make that country’s main export cheaper!?
April 28th, 2006 at 3:22 pmBoooo, repost from earlier this week(maybe last week). You can do better TP.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:22 pmSquegeeboo -
I take exception. While the same Lindsey quote appeared on TP last week, the news that the Iraq invasion has INCREASED oil prices is from today. Last week’s post was a response to Dan Bartlett’s claim that the administration never said the Iraq war would lower oil prices. Thanks for staying on top of our posts, though!
Payson
April 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pm#1
Yeah - Bush is a failure at everything he does. He couldn’t even get sober. He thought that by not drinking alcohol and finding Jesus (Jesus told me that HE was never lost and doesn’t understand why people keep finding HIM) he would become a man. Instead, he is nothing more than a dry drunk and a man-child. When a person becomes a substance abuser, they stop developing emotionally. So by using Bush’s behavior as a reference point, I would say that he started his substance abuse when he was still in grade school (example: “I am the decider….”).
“When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how could we make the world safer. When conservatives say 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity“
April 28th, 2006 at 3:28 pmno real suprise, turmoil in the middle east is one of the most quoted reasons, behind increased demand in India and China, for the rising price of oil. Keep in mind however that this is the same group of people who just said that $4.00/gallon would not be a big deal, and that invading Iran would lower prices. I am waiting for FNC to have a special on why a limited nuclear war is a good idea.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:30 pmWhen liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how could we make the world safer. When conservatives say 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity“
Comment by cats are flyfishn — April 28, 2006 @
“You don’t do product roll-outs in August.”
April 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pmWhile that may be true, another “significant factor” in the price of oil, I thought, was all those refineries that the oil companies bought up and then closed down. They like to tell us that refinement is the bottleneck, not supply. Even former Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar “Bush” tried to trot out this excuse. Well, if oil is supposedly a national security issue, then the federal government can step in and overrule any local or state governments that are stopping the refineries from opening up again. And if they aren’t the reason, then what is?
And if, as I have been told by another poster here, we are exporting 85% of our Alaskan Pipeline oil to Japan, then why would we have to open up another area for drilling? Why not cut back on exporting our own oil?
April 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pmSure - let’s invade Iran. That should make the price of oil drop (sarcasm) and while we spreading democracy (Iran is a democracy), we might as well go into Saudia Arabia and take their oil, oops, I mean remove the royalty and promote free elections. This should bring stability to the Milddle East and give us cheap oil. (sarcasm)
April 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pmAnd to whom is this new news?
April 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#9 - Wayne
We have to keep exporting our oil to Japan because Japan will pay higher prices for oil than Americans will.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:37 pm#11 - to the 32% that still drink the koolaid :)
April 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pmPayson
Touche Sir, point to you.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pmWhich is it progs??? “High gas prices will force alternative energy sources online and MAKE gluttonous AMERicans consume less oil!!!” - - or - - “POOR AMERican consumers - how will THEY make ends meet??”
April 28th, 2006 at 3:42 pmThis is a question for schizo-progs….
Maybe progressives want to bring gas prices down, so our economy can continue to function, while we bring online new fuel sources. That would benefit everyone except the oil companies.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm“This is a question for schizo-progs…. Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
A sociopath accusing others of being schizophrenic - how ‘ironic’.
I guess it hadn’t dawned on you that while the high oil prices might force alternative energy sources - those folks who already own gas guzzling SUVs and McMansions will have to ‘make ends meet’ until this happens. It’s a ‘transition period’, and hardly schizophrenic.
Then again, why would a SOCIOPATH like you even understand what schizophrenia is.
You really need to get a dictionary there ‘mighty breech‘, so you don’t look so RETARDED on a daily basis. Currently you just look like a bit fat stupid RepublicaMORON.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:48 pm#12 CAF,
So, what you’re saying is that oil prices are high because even those countries that can produce their own oil are selling it to other countries that would pay more for it? (I’m not trying to pick a fight; I’m trying to get my head around this.) And then some of these oil exporting countries have to buy oil from other countries to supply their own needs. If that’s all true, then it sounds like the way to bring oil prices down is for everyone to stop exporting their own oil, and only export what they dopn;t need themselves. In fact, I think if we cut out all the unnecessary middlemen, prices should drop all over the world. And then the oil companies wouldn’t be able to give their (rather unsightly) CEOs hundred-million-dollar retirement packages. Right? (I know I sound naive and I admit that I have no economic training. And I probably know as little about the oil business as President Bush - who was never that good. And yes, I also know that this is something some people would kill over. Well, none of my friends would.)
April 28th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThe Iraq invasion was based on control of that country’s production and the fact that Saddam was trading in Euros causing the recession of the late 90’s.It is necessary that the US have control of all the oil resources as our currency is based on petroleum, weapons coming in a far second.Since we have such a huge number of dollars floating around in foriegn countries so they can purchase oil,to have a producer trading in another currency diminishes our currency which cannot be borne.My gut tells me that this price fixing comes from insider knowledge of the coming collapse since Iran will be opening its bourse trading in euros to China and India and SA countries in economic warfare never seen on this scale before.If the US does not gain control of Iranian oil it is kind of good bye charlie for this economy.So we can expect more violent conflict soon.Unfortunatley I have yet to purchase a bicycle.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pm#7
I’m waiting for Fox.com to post a good story or two out of Iraq. You know, the ones that the Bush admin claims the MSM is missing and the ones that the liberal press are covering up. I’ve now checked it 9 times in 5 weeks and still nothing.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pm#15 - Mighty Aphro, Of course it’s a question for schizo-progs, because all the schizo-cons can only consider how mch oil has gone down since the war!
In fact, schizo-cons are only thinking about how they’ll stel the next election, how to get Abramoff to send them more money, and when the Easter Bunny is going to bring them more chocolate eggs that Jesus made after he rose from the grave!
Now go home and take your lithium with your kool-aid, sweetie. We don’t want you to wake up to reality any time soon. Your heart won’t take the stress.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pmMary,
the good news is the Iranin Bourse is at least a year or more away, and the article I read on it yesterday, indicated that it may not be that successful. The US dollar is used for trading largely because it is common. The euro has not been produced in the same kind of quantities. From you post, it sounds like the US needs to get its currency under control, and take a good hard look at what we use to value our currency.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#18 Wayne
What I’m saying is that it is the profit margin that determines how the product gets distributed. Glad I got you thinking. It is a scam that we don’t keep the oil from Alaska within the lower 48 and instead sell to Japan. Oh - the almighty profit margins :)
April 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pmYes Iraq causes high Oil prices because OPEC now controls its output! Saddam before the invasion was almost pumping up to 2 to 3 million barrels of crude a day! After Bush and his Oil Cartel chums took over it has dropped to under 1 million barrels a day! That curtailment of Oil out of Iraq has allowed the price of crude to more than double since 2003! Oil CEOs want more profits and Bush works for them > NOT American citizens!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:01 pmThis just in from Captain Obvious:
#23 The oil that would be drilled if ANWR is opened up would be shipped to Japan and China……! The oil in Alaska does not belong to Amurka, it belongs to the companies that dig it up….!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:04 pmNot only are we getting scammed on the Alaska oil, Dumbya wants to give all the oil on the continental shelf to the oil companies royalty free. That way the oil companies can screw us twice.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pm#23 CAF,
Thank you. So what you’re indicating to me is that they are being a little intellectually dishonest when they say that we are “too dependent on foreign oil”. We could, in fact, be getting it cheaper from ourselves and become far less “dependent on foreign oil.”
April 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pmAmericans are too stupid and know its costing them more than they will ever be able to comprehend. I’m going out and buying the biggest SUV I can find because gas will be back under $1 by winter.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:08 pmThis just in from Captain Obvious:
ALL oil is foreign oil - whether it is dug up in Texas or Alaska, Iran or Columbia - the worldwide oil market makes it so.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pmWell, thanks everyone. It sounds to me like our own government is (and always has been) part of the problem. So why should we believe a word they tell us about how they’ll help bring down gas prices at the pump?
I’m outta here. Have a great weekend everyone. Remember to catch Stephen Colbert hosting the White House Correspondents Dinner starting at 8 PM, Saturday, on C-SPAN.
Peace and long life.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pm#26″Dumbya wants to give all the oil on the continental shelf to the oil companies royalty free. That way the oil companies can screw us twice.”
Well that would lower the cost of an oil of Barrel.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:11 pmOil, Oil. Toil and trouble.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:12 pmNot really squeegee. it would only lower the cost of oil, if that oil was kept in the US. it sounds like much of the oil produced domestically is going elsewhere. That doesn’t make any sense to me but I am sure there is a good reason. (money)
April 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmThe ‘war’ in Iraq was a business decision. The PTB knew oil prices would rise with an invasion. They knew that they would be able to cash in on the (sp)oils. Ain’t too tough to see that one.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:18 pmif that oil was kept in the US.
If the oil was kept in the US, then we wouldn’t have as high of a demand for imports, so there would be extra imports for other regions, which would lower the cost for those other regions as well due to increased supply. Prob. not even a dollar a barrel, but still a little lower, and you have to start somewhere.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pmVery True squegee.
that is a big if. What I think is being overlooked, is from an oil company perspective higher profits can be made selling the oil to Japan and China then keeping it in the US. I don’t really expect to see gas prices come down too far below $3.00/gallon. I think we are stuck.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:22 pmBush Rejects Windfall Tax on Oil Profits
By TERENCE HUNT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Friday rejected calls by some lawmakers for a tax on oil company windfall profits, saying the industry should reinvest its recent gains into finding and producing more energy.
…yea, they should … but … well, no guesses…
April 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmRight. Who has benefitted from the Iraq quagmire?
The American people? Nope, many of them have lost lives, or the lives of family & friends. It’s socked us into horrible debt and made us the pariah of the world. It’s also increased the risk of terrorism.
The Iraqi people? Nope. From reports, conditions appear to be worse than they were under Saddam (as bad as that sucked already).
Defense contractors? Yessiree Bob.
Mercenaries? Yeah baby.
Oil companies? Hoo boy! Their profits continue to spike right out into the stratosphere.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:25 pmmore ALTERNATIVE sources, that is…
April 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pmagain…no guesses…
Krazny
I f’ed up in implying it would only help if it stayed in the US, even if it gets sent to Japan, or China for example, those countries would then need less imports from their regular sources, which would lower the demand a little bit and would allow us to import from their old sources at a slight discount, not much, but a slight one.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pmDennis Hastert practices “I could’ve had a V-8!” lines for future audition for popular vegetable juice commercial:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., center, gets out of a Hydrogen Alternative Fueled automobile, left, as he prepares to board his SUV, which uses gasoline, after holding a news conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars only to switch to their official cars to drive the few blocks back to the U.S. Capitol.
See it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/ news?tmpl=story&u=/ 060427/ 480/ dcpm10904272019
April 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pmIraq VP warns Americans against striking Iran
(Reuters)
28 April 2006
NAJAF, Iraq - An Iraqi vice president warned the United States on Friday against attacking Iran. Adel Abdul Mahdi, the Shia member of the three-man Presidency Council, was asked about speculation US forces might strike to prevent Iran developing nuclear technology:
We will not allow anyone to attack anyone, he said after a meeting in the holy city of Najaf with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric. We think that the use of force is not appropriate for solving any problem.
The leaders of Iraq’s Shia majority, including Mahdi’s SCIRI party, have close ties to their fellow Shia Islamists ruling neighbouring Iran, where many of them sought refuge from the Sunni-dominated administration of Saddam Hussein.
Another leading Iraqi Shia politician, cleric and militia leader Moqtada alAl Sadr, recently pledged the support of his Mehdi Army fighters to Iran if US forces attacked.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pmYeah, you’d think, right, since we now have control of the 2nd largets oil reserves on earth? Uh uh. We could have control of Iraq’s, Iran’s, Saudi Arabia’s, Kuwait’s and Jerry Lewis’s hair oil and we’d still be paying over $3 a gallon. I just “filled up” with $15 and got barely over five gallons.
But then again, what kind of idiocy do you expect from such people as Lindsey when Bush is the Crony Fairy, according to Paul Krugman? As always, I’ll hold up the velvet rope for ya’ll.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pmperhaps squegee, I am not 100% convinced it would work that way. Like I said I don’t think oil prices are going to come down anytime soon. Even if we completely stabilized Iraq, I can’t see barrel prices going lower then around $50. That would overall be an incredible inprovement of course. but nothing like the $20/barrel before the start of GWII.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:36 pmIf Bush wasn’t so damned addicted to oil, er I mean cocaine and alcohol, we wouldn’t be in this mess!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#37 Katy, again what Chimpy says and what is happening differ. Exxon for example is investing in new production at very low rates compared to the dividend it is giving the shareholders - to you and me that’s a compnay that is liquidating its business. Also Exxon has publically stated that it has nothing to do with alterantive sources. Then you have BP uninvesting in maintaining existing Alaskan infrastructure and causing the biggest onshore spill ever. Waiting for big oil to invest and solve the energy problem is like an addict asking a herion pusher to invest in affordable methadone.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#44 I don’t think oil prices are going to come down anytime soon.
Thats the problem with you hippies, always so pessimistic, once we take over Iran, we then have two major producers of oil, quick stop off in kuwait, and we’re all set, Gas for pennies at that point. Problem solved. And the best part? We never get our comeuppance.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pmAll we need is you guys to stop complaining and get on board. Its flawless, nothing could go wrong, its even better then an A-Team plan.
LOL
I have to do it…… can’ t resist……….
“I PITY THE FOOL WHO THINKS THE PNAC WILL WORK”
April 28th, 2006 at 4:42 pmon a more serious note, the reason I don’t think gas prices will fall much, is because the oil companies know that they can get $3/g from us. Why accept any less?
April 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pmThe Iraqi people? Nope. From reports, conditions appear to be worse than they were under Saddam (as bad as that sucked already).
Comment by Preznit Pinhead — April 28, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Saw a report on CBS Evening News a couple of days ago about the construction money that has been spent so far. After spending over $20 billion, here’s where they stand:
- Power -
Even after billions were spent on power plants and substations, electricity generation still hasn’t regained the level it had before the U.S. invasion of 2003. When Fallon’s experts keep the lights burning late, they’re relying on emergency U.S. generators in their “Green Zone” enclave, since the rest of Baghdad gets power only a few hours a day. (Michael Fallon is U.S. reconstruction program chief.)
- Water/Sewer -
Barely one-third of the water-treatment projects the Americans planned will be completed. Only 32 percent of the Iraqi population has access to clean drinking water now, compared with 50 percent before the war, according to the U.S. special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction.
About 19 percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, compared with 24 percent before 2003.
- Health -
Of more than 150 planned health clinics, only 15 have been completed, under a contract ending this month.
- Oil production -
Oil production, meanwhile, has stagnated, averaging 2.05 million barrels a day in mid-March, short of the 2.5 million-a-day U.S. goal, and far short of Iraq’s production peak of 3.7 million in the 1970s. Fewer than one-quarter of the rehabilitation projects for the oil industry have been completed.
Yep. Iraq is in good shape.
Much more at http://www.cbsnews.com/ stories/ 2006/ 04/ 08/ ap/ business/ mainD8GS106G0.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories
April 28th, 2006 at 4:47 pmPost 47 LOL you are hilarious > if you believe that baloney, then I can sell you tar sand in Borneo! Oil Cartel CEOs want more profits > NOT less, so dream on about gasoline for pennies a gallon! After Bush attacks Iran expect the price at the pump to jump to at least 5 bucks and could go as high as 10 bucks next year! Go give Bush a BJ since you love him so much and spew his bullcrap on here!
April 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#49 on a more serious note, the reason I don’t think gas prices will fall much, is because the oil companies know that they can get $3/g from us. Why accept any less?
On a more, more serious note, the gas companies only make roughly 9 cents for every dollar spent, the real villians in gas price are the state/federal taxes on each gallon, and the cost of switching over from whatever it was to ethanol, which can be imported cheap except for the steep tariff placed on it by the feds.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:52 pmNah we debunked that a while back. when gas was hovering around a $1.20 the thing about the taxes might have been true, but at this point much of it is buying the oil transportation and refining cost.
here is a good link to what each state is paying as far as taxes go.
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
April 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pmATTENTION ALL “HIPPIES”
April 28th, 2006 12:00 am
Neil Young’s ‘Living With War’ Shows He Doesn’t Like It
By Jon Pareles / New York Times
Neil Young unleashes a digital broadside today. His new album, “Living With War” (Reprise), was recorded and mostly written three to four weeks ago and as of Friday can be heard in its entirety free on his Web site, http://www.neilyoung.com, and on satellite radio networks.
Mr. Young half-jokingly describes “Living With War” as his “metal folk protest” album. It’s his blunt statement about the Iraq war; “History was a cruel judge of overconfidence/back in the days of shock and awe,” he sings, strumming an electric guitar and leading a power trio with a sound that harks back to Young albums like “Rust Never Sleeps” and “Ragged Glory.”
Some songs add a trumpet or a 100-voice choir, hastily convened in Los Angeles for one 12-hour session. During the nine new songs he sympathizes with soldiers and war victims, insists “Don’t need no more lies,” longs for a leader to reunite America and prays for peace.
In a song whose title alone has already brought him the fury of right-wing blogs, he urges, “Let’s Impeach the President.” It ends with Mr. Young shouting, “Flip, flop,” amid contradictory sound bites of President Bush. But Mr. Young insists the album is nonpartisan.
“If you impeach Bush, you’re doing a huge favor for the Republicans,” he argued, speaking by telephone from California. “They can run again with some pride.”
Mr. Young is a Canadian citizen. But having lived in the United States since the 1960’s, he sings as if he were an American. The title song of “Living With War” quotes “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and the album ends with the choir singing “America the Beautiful.”
The album’s release is a high-tech, globe-spanning update of a topical song tradition that’s much older than recordings: the broadside, a songwriter’s rapid response to events of the day. “They had these songs that everybody knew the melodies to,” Mr. Young said. “They’d just write new words, and the minstrels would be traveling around spreading the word. Music spreads like wildfire when you do it that way.”
On Tuesday a higher-quality version will be for sale as a download from online music stores, and a CD will be in stores next week as soon as it can be manufactured and shipped. Eventually a DVD will be released with video of the recording sessions, which took place March 29 to April 6. Many of the songs on the album were first takes, recorded immediately after Mr. Young taught them to the band. On March 31 he wrote three songs: “Let’s Impeach the President” before breakfast, “Looking for a Leader” after he recorded “Let’s Impeach the President” and “Roger and Out” the same evening.
Mr. Young’s Web site will have a more elaborate presentation, available free. It will include a page designed like a cable-news broadcast, complete with visuals (including recording-session scenes), ticker and logo: LWW (for “Living With War”) rather than CNN. “Even if it turns out that we can’t sell it with the news in it, we won’t sell it, we’ll just stream it,” he said. “We don’t have to sell it. We can still get it out there. This has nothing to do with money as far as I’m concerned.”
Mr. Young wants the album heard as a whole. The online streams play through from beginning to end; until the CD is ready, the downloadable copies will be available only as a bundle of the full album. “That first impression is so important,” he said. “Instead of just going to ‘Let’s Impeach the President,’ people will have to absorb the whole thing. To understand the songs, you need to understand where the whole album’s coming from. It protects my right as an artist to have the work presented the way I created it.”
Mr. Young has always been impatient with the time lag between writing a song and getting it to the world. When four student protesters were shot dead at Kent State University in 1970, he wrote “Ohio,” recorded it with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young and released it two and a half weeks later by sending acetates — preliminary pressings — to radio stations. (He will be on tour this summer as a member of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young in what’s billed as the Freedom of Speech Tour.)
After 9/11 Mr. Young wrote “Let’s Roll,” a song about the passengers who brought down a hijacked plane in Pennsylvania, and released it free online. “Now we have the Internet,” he said. “It doesn’t sound as good, but it’s much faster, and it gets around the world. That’s huge, that’s as big as we get.”
The songs on “Living With War” are straightforward and single-minded, setting aside the allusive, enigmatic quality of Mr. Young’s rock classics. “These are all ideas we’ve heard before,” he said. “There’s nothing new in there. I just connected the dots.”
The protest song, rocked-up slightly from its folky 1960’s form, has been making a comeback during the Iraq war, from arena bands like Pearl Jam, the Rolling Stones and Green Day to indie-rockers like Bright Eyes and blues-rockers like Keb’ Mo’ and Robert Cray. Bruce Springsteen’s latest album is a tribute to the protest-song mentor Pete Seeger, although it features old folk songs rather than Mr. Seeger’s topical material.
“We are the silent majority now, and we haven’t done a damn thing,” Mr. Young said. “We’ve stood by and watched this happen. But there’s more of us than there is of them, and we have to do something. When people start talking and see they can get away with it, it’s going to happen everywhere. It’s going to be a landslide, it’s going to be a tidal wave. This is just the tip of it.”
Mr. Young said that he made “Living With War” not with a plan, but on an impulse. “I don’t know what actually did it,” he said. “It happened really fast, faster than I think I’ve ever experienced. There was just a kind of a wave.”
As in the 60’s, protest songs risk self-righteousness and preaching only to the converted. Only the most generalized ones outlast the interest in whatever headlines inspired them. There’s not a lot of mystery to the songs on “Living With War”; they make their points as forthrightly as possible. Yet in the Internet era information — not just songs but blogs, videos, photos, drawings, e-mail jottings — is in the paradoxical position of being published worldwide and perhaps archived forever, but also being impulsive and ephemeral. A song for the Internet doesn’t have to be one for the ages. Like an old broadside, it just has to get around for its moment, for right now. “Living With War” — irate, passionate, tuneful, thoughtful and obstinate — is definitely worth a click.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pmBefore the run up to the Iraq war, the price of a barrel of oil was about $25.
Enough said, except that before the “decider” started seriously thinking about nuking Iran, a barrel of oil sold for $60 or less.
As of today oil is $72.45/barrel.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pm#49 - where did you get that information. I cannot remember who, but someone posted a link about a week ago the illustrated each states taxes. The fed gets about .18 per gallon, and the most of the states seemed to opt for a percentage of sales, but this dd not add up to $2.91 as you seem to be implying. Not anywhere near.
I will try to find the link.
April 28th, 2006 at 4:59 pmAnd to make it worse:
Doesn’t this concern anyone!!!
Is George Bush going to bankrupt the United States government?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pmJules I just reposted the link in #53. if you do a search for state gas tax it comes up at the top typically.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pmThanks Krazny, I remember looking at that website and realizing how that republican arguement was, as so many of them are, bullcrap. However, I just could not remember who posted it.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:03 pmIs George Bush going to bankrupt the United States government?
Supposedly, Osama Bin Laden threatened to bankrupt America. I guess he can relax, Bubble boy is doing a fine job of it himself.
Impeach the pyschopath!
April 28th, 2006 at 5:04 pmyou’re so correct terry #46 (it’s so hard to type the “r” word)
i added that #39 to 37 because i’m sure HE meant “finding and producing” more oil , while i meant that they should find alternative sources… but, as you said:
Waiting for big oil to invest and solve the energy problem is like an addict asking a herion pusher to invest in affordable methadone.
but those windfall profits SOULD be taxed…i can’t believe oil companies are subsidized, AND not taxed…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#53
Krazny, the thing about profit margin is still true, exxon and chevron just released their 1st quarter earnings, and their profit margins are basically the same as last year
http://news.xinhuanet.com/ english/ 2006-04/ 28/ content_4484781.htm
April 28th, 2006 at 5:06 pmhttp://www.bloomberg.com/ apps/ news?pid=10000103&sid=accqMPuEKrWg&refer=us
For 1st quarter
Exxon, revenue of 88.98 Billion, Profit of 8.4 gives you a profit margin of 9.4%
Chevron revenue of 54.6 Billion, Profit(they called it income) of 4, gives you a profit margin of 7.3%
#56 Jules, try this resource: http://www.theoildrum.com/ story/ 2006/ 4/ 27/ 22501/ 5241#more
Crude Price 55%
Refining Costs 22%
Distribution 4%
Taxes 19%
Fed tax will be fixed per gallon and state tax varies on % or by fixed number of c per gallon - depends on the state.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:07 pmJules,
I think there was an element of truth to the statements when gas prices were much lower. I figured it out one time, based upon the price of a gallon being $2.50, and say I purchased 10 gallons. I know the numbers are old so please bear with me. If I remember correctly the Fed, state and local governments depending on the state could potentially see as much as $4 or more on a $25 purchase. Of course that leaves $21 going back to the oil company. I realize that they have to pay wages, and all the other stuff but…..
April 28th, 2006 at 5:07 pmHigh Mileage Meme…
Recycling falsehoods never gets old at Think Progress. This time in an effort to blame high oil prices directly on the invasion of Iraq, they recycle their false claim that a Bush administration official predicted that regime-change in Iraq would lower…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:10 pm[…] “Iraq could be making a tremendous difference,” said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi, seeking to explain why oil prices have jumped to $70 a barrel. The reduced output from Iraq’s oil industry is “a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil,” he said. (Think Progress) […]
April 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmSure the profit margin according to Exxon is the same. I must admit I don’t 100 percent figures sent out by exxon, anyway the profit margin may be the same, but the price of the product has more then doubled in the last 6 years. If the oil companies had any compassion, they could lower their profit margin a bit and thus lower the price of gas, or invest the money their making into bringing alternate fuels online and into mainstream production and use.
Also why are we importing ethonal, have you ever driven through Indiana?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#47 I like A-Team plans. We don’t have to actually shoot Iranians. We’ll just shoot around their feet, they’ll get scared and jump in a car which will flip and explode, but they’ll be thrown clear and land in a soft haystack.
And the best part is we never got our come-uppance. You hear me world? No come-uppance!
April 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pmHigh Mileage Meme…
Recycling falsehoods never gets old for Seixon. This time in an effort to deflect blame from the Bush White House about high oil prices. he recycles his false claim that a Bush administration official never predicted that regime-change in Iraq would lower…
Funny how it works when you change a few words around. Please read the post before you jump in you won’t look like such a fool.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pm# 54-S.R.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI love Neil Young as much as anyone.As a matter of fact I’ll be listening to side 2 of FREEDOM tonight;But what does your thread busting blog have to do with lack of oil from Iraq? This sounds like something SANTO/katy would do.Hhmmmm.
Krazny, Think Progress falsified the excerpt from the Washington Times. Lindsey never said that the war WOULD lower oil prices, he said that it WOULD TEND TO, in the case that the war was short, and said earlier on in the article that he was UNCERTAIN as to what would happen as a result of the war.
Don’t let that stop you from continuing to believe in TP’s jibberjabber. I know you’re still trying to figure out why TP never linked to the Washington Times article. Oh wait, you’re a brainwashed liberal. Nevermind.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:22 pmumm yeah I am a brainwashed liberal, but you are the one who when confronted with direct evidence that is contrary to your opinion you choose to disbelieve the facts. Please go back to your room and stay there.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pmSo we’re getting less oil from Iraq since invading? Then I guess that means we aren’t occupying Iraq for oil after all, don’t you think?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pmLOL. Krazny, I have the link to the Washington Times article, where it doesn’t say what Think Progress says it does. Who’s the one disbelieving facts?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:28 pmOil production in Iraq is almost at pre-war PEAK. Nope, can’t blame it on Iraq. Why is it that TP liberals never address increasing demand as part of the problem? Must be that paranoia.
See: Brookings Iraq Index
Always blaming somebody or something they don’t like and never offering a solution.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:30 pmPlease post the link so I can read the article then
April 28th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#71 has a point. The official only said the war would lead to lower prices in every plausible scenario. Clearly, reality is not plausible to the Bush administration, and Bush’s supporters understand this.
He did hedge by saying it was uncertain, so if his statement about every plausible scenario leading to lower gas prices made you think it would lead to lower gas prices, that must be your fault.
The real point #71 is trying to make is don’t hold Bush to his word, don’t criticize him and all liberals must give up their right to representation in government.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pmChina’s demand is up over 1 million barrels since the war, the US demand is up, there are problems in Nigeria, the refineries are going at max, Iran is scaring the hell out of everyone…
Nope, it’s Iraq’s decline of 100,000 barrels of oil production since the invasion that is the cause of high oil prices!
The “reality based community” strikes again.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pmthanks for that neil young story, stupid r. - have been waiting to hear about that release - surely it will be on itunes?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:32 pmbut, in the future, a short blurb and the link would be a better idea than pasting the whole thing - it tands to unnerve some people, myself included…
but this old hippy is anxious to hear neil rant again…thanks!
I was under the impression that current oil production levels in Iraq, were around 2.05 million barrels a day. pre war production was 3million+. I am unsure how a 66% is considered almost back to prewar peak?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pmKrazny, you didn’t even bother reading my blog post? Figures. The link is there, in all its glory. Don’t be afraid, it’s OK to read things that might prove Think Progress is lying to you.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:34 pmKrazny, read my goddamn blog post. Iraqi oil production was only 2.1 million barrels in 2002.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:35 pm#78 er this gentleman fmr the API is the ‘reality-based community’ you refer to:
‘’Iraq could be making a tremendous difference,’’ said Dalton Garis, an economist at the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi. Instead, its shortfall is ‘’a significant contributing factor to the high price of oil,’’ he said.
A ’significant factor’ - one of many.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:36 pmI’d say that Dalton Garis is wrong, because the numbers don’t support what he is saying. China, Nigeria, and Iran dwarf any effect that Iraq is having on the oil price, not to mention our own increasing demand for oil.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:38 pmI don’t read our blog post sexion because I have a low bullshit quota, and have already been to redstate.org today. Please if you are so unafraid post the link so I can read the article. I did a quick search through the wa post but didn’t find the referenced article.
Okay according to CIA prewar was 2.3 million barrels, vs what is being produced now which is near 2.093 million barrels. However pre gulf war one Iraq was producing 3 million+ a day. sugar your claim is increased demand is soley responsible for the high oil prices. While it is true that increased demand in China and India have indeed caused higher oil prices, instability in the middle east is also a factor. If you ask any oil trader they will affirm this statement.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#82 what ‘goddamn blog post’ - what link? I looked and could not find one…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#84, hmmm are you a professional oil analyst Seixon, or do you think Mr Garis gets his research from Thinkprogress and spends the rest of the day windsurfing in the Gulf? I have to say that I feel inclined to go with someone who is paid to analyze the market than an amateur blogger, but go ahead, try and change my mind…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pmKrazny,
I’m not like RedState, I’m not a partisan conservative. You don’t read my blog post because you will be faced with something called the truth, something sorely lacking here at Think Progress, a partisan progressive site. Partisans of all colors lie.
According to OPEC, Iraq exported 2.1M barrels in 2002. In 2005, this was 2M. That’s only a difference of 100,000. Now consider China has increased their demand over 1M barrels over the same time period, the US demand has gone up, as has it in India and many other places. Then consider Nigeria. Then consider Iran’s sabre-rattling. Iraq’s decrease in 100,000 production becomes a blip on the radar. In fact, Iraq’s production was much, much worse in 2003 and 2004, without the oil price going wild like it is now.
The link is on my blog post. Read it. Coward.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:44 pm#86, the one that is trackbacked at #65.
#87, the man has been quote-shopped, as is a typical practice in the media. No one who is a serious economist could claim that Iraq’s decrease in 100,000 barrels since the war is a “significant” contributor to the oil price.
Just look back at Iraq’s laughable production in 2003, and 2004. How did the oil price react to that? Hmm, not like it is doing now. Not at all. Which shows that Iraq’s production isn’t what is driving it, it is oil demand and refinery problems globally.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:47 pm#88 that makes sense to me Seixon, Garis ’significant factor’ does seem to be less significant overall, but then was he talking about the expectations pushed about by the administration that oil production would pay for the Iraqi reconstruction? To me that means that Wolfy and co thought that they could quickly up Iraqi production to over pre-war levels and it is this shortfall in expectation that Garis is referring to? Not enough facts around to go into this one further - too many ifs and buts
April 28th, 2006 at 5:51 pmSeixon I found the information on how much oil Iraq is producing, and posted new comments retracting my old ones. I can admit when I am wrong. I also pointed out that pre GWI Iraq was producing over 3million barrels a day. you get to part of the meat of the matter when you say that Iraq’s production was lower in ‘03 and ‘04 without oil prices jumping around. What you are failing to acknowledge is the effects of a possible war in Iran has created instability in the world oil market.
For some one who is not a partisan you sure do spend a lot of time parsing Lindsey’s statement. Lindsey stated
Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.â€
this was picked up by fox news and the right wing noise machine and pushed out to the American public as ” this is a quick war, and we will have cheap gas”
Please post the link or STFU. I will not read your partisan blog.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:53 pmwhatever you do sexion, don’t blame gas guzzling suv drivers in this country, they’re only responding to the free market like good conservatives do.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:53 pm#89 - all in all, I think the price is reflective of demand and geopolitical uncertainty and I agree. Agreed without looking at the whole of what Garis said, I can’t see how this amounts to a significant factor…
April 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pm“Krazny, read my goddamn blog post. Iraqi oil production was only 2.1 million barrels in 2002. Comment by Stupidone”
Really because USA Today claims it was 2.6 million.
http://www.usatoday.com/ money/ industries/ energy/ 2005-10-10-iraq-oil-usat_x.htm
You really are the ‘queen’ of misinformation aren’t little guy?
April 28th, 2006 at 5:54 pmSo who is right here? USA today says 2.6 million prewar, the CIA say 2.03 million. sure 100,000 barrels will not make a huge difference, but 5 million barrels would. Also the article states that equipment problems may mean Iraq produces less oil.
April 28th, 2006 at 5:59 pmKrazny,
First off, I also have the washington Times article, and the guy says it’ll lower prices, so your right on that one.
Secondly, back to oil profits:
from 64: Where you did the 25, 4 to tax, 21 to the company. Assuming those are close, the oil company, using 9% profit margin, only made 1.89 in profit on that entire sale, compared to software (IBM posted a 39.1% profit margin this quarter) or pharamcy which is above 20% thats nothing. Secondly, they worked to earn that 1.89, all the gov’t did was charge a fee for operating in their area, much like Tony Soprano skimming 10%, except in this case its 20%. The oil companies remaining $19.11 all gets reinvested into production/exploration/research/400Million to executives, and so on. The gov’ts 4 dollars gets reinvested into whatver they want, including Pork projects.
From 67:”If the oil companies had any compassion, they could lower their profit margin a bit and thus lower the price of gas”
Companies don’t have compassion, they have obligations to there bottom line, and to their investors. Gov’ts are supposed to have compassion, it can’t be that hard to strip out a couple billion here or there from pork and earmarkings to make up for not charging a gas tax.
“Also why are we importing ethonal, have you ever driven through Indiana? ”
April 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pmWe arn’t importing that much ethonal, due to the tariff on it. The tariff serves the same purpose of other tariffs like the sugar tariff, to make our home produced product be on better or equal footing with imports. With out the tariff it would be cheaper to import ethanol then to go thru domestic sources, and I believe there is a current bottle neck in domestic production due to the increased demand caused by the required shift to ethanol as an additive, so importing would help solve that issue.
#94, ok now I’m confused - the USA Today says that production in 2003 prior to the war is 2.6 MBD, but that 500k is used domestically and 1.4 MBD exported (that’s only 1.9 MBD - where’s the rest?). Then it goes on to say that the production average for the prior year was 2.0 MBD?
April 28th, 2006 at 6:02 pm# 79-katy/Stupid Republicans:
April 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pmNo need to thank yourself.
Squeege
Put that way I suppose your right, but when I am paying $3.21/g all I am seeing is red. Perhaps an investment into alternate fuel production would be in order. If it is too expensive to manufacture here, then we should find a way to bring the cost down. Energy and access to cheap energy has become a national security issue, and I think we need to step up and find ways to be independant.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pmThat is a good question Terry,
is someone playing a shell game with 7 million barrels of oil?
April 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pmTerry I think your math is off a bit. 1.4million +500k would be 1.45million minus 2.0million would leave 5.5 million barrels unaccounted for.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pmsorry sorry that would be around 500k unaccounted for. I need to get more sleep
April 28th, 2006 at 6:12 pm#54 NEIL YOUNG holy crap he hasnt done anything good since he left Stills,Crosby and Nash. please find anyone a little more current. Rage against the Machine perhaps. Hell their 10 years to late. Neil Young…..You might as well listen to Benny Goodman. Being a 60s guy was still cool in 1970. Please step into the 21st century. There has to be someone to sing antiwar songs that anyone younger than my grandpa will like.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:13 pm#99
1. Windfall tax on oil company profits used for driving season tax holiday for consumers
April 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pm2. Funding for Apollo Project for energy independence using windfall tax - see Apollo Alliance.org
3. Immediate return to lower speed limits in force at start of 90s
4. New vehicles after 2006 to have significant fuel efficiency raises
5. Increased tax credits for energy star programme, hybrids, solar panels for homes, windows etc
6. Realign energy tax structure as a carbon tax
I was under the impression that current oil production levels in Iraq, were around 2.05 million barrels a day. pre war production was 3million+. I am unsure how a 66% is considered almost back to prewar peak?
Comment by Krazny — April 28, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
The same reasoning that says Republicans winning a majority of state governorships at election time, during a Democratic presidency, is a mandate, but switch it around, and it’s not.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:14 pmPearljam, Greenday, Eminem, Dead Kennedy’s ( I know I know they do go back) Dixie Chicks. At least there a little more current
April 28th, 2006 at 6:15 pm#103 how about Pearl Jam?
April 28th, 2006 at 6:17 pmWhat about giving tax breaks to home owners who install solar panels? I know that you cannot run an entire household off of solar panels, but you could reduce the amount of electricity you needed.
I think Bush called for higher mileage on cars today did he not?
Do what Brazil did, and place ethonal at all gas stations then give everyone the option to use it or gasoline.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:19 pmTerry
my wife are I are going to go see PJ in Santa Barbara coming up. We saw them last year in Vancouver BC, it was a fun show.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:21 pmThe USA Today is taking a number from right before the war, most likely a single month figure. The 2.1M figure from OPEC is the monthly average for the whole year of 2002. You can’t compare a single month to a yearly average.
The yearly average for Iraq’s oil production in 2003 was abysmal, yet did the oil prices surge? No.
Lindsey says point blank in the Washington Times interview that he was UNCERTAIN as to what would happen. He then said that a regime change in Iraq WOULD TEND TO lower oil prices, but this was qualified by earlier statements where he said he was uncertain what would happen, and that it depended heavily on how quickly the war went and how successful it was.
Think Progress has taken this completely out of context, and changed it from WOULD TEND TO to WOULD to make it much more assertive. Lindsey was not “predicting” anything in his interview, as anyone with reading comprehension can see for themselves.
Krazny, you’re insistence on not reading my blog post because it might be harmful to your ego shows you are nothing but a partisan. You said you searched the Washington Post for it - why? It was in the Washington TIMES.
Oh well. Here is the link, since you are too scared to read my blog because it might hurt your little partisan feelings: http://web.archive.org/ web/ 20020918111623/ http:/ / www.washtimes.com/ national/ 20020916-8081695.htm
April 28th, 2006 at 6:23 pm#109 - Krazny, the Bush call for mileage increases was debunked as having no significant impact on demand - it was a fig leaf, same as Tony Blair is his foreign policy figleaf of the willing. Ethanol won’t do the job, current ethanol production uses 15% of the corn crop to produce 5% of the gasoline substitution (oh and the 15% corn is fed by, you guessed it, synthesized fertilizer from nat gas - oops). Better buy some new walking boots and a bike.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:26 pmActually Seixon I won’t read your blog because I know it annoys you. I know I know it is a bit childish but, I cannot help it sometimes. Thank you for admitting that Lindsey did indeed state that the war in Iraq would lower gas prices. you can parse it anyway you would like but that is the truth. Also please note that the media picked up an broadcast over and over again those same sentiments.
Since you don’t have any direct evidence that the figure from the USA Today article is a monthly or yearly, I have to place that whole thing into a context of somewhat unknow. It sounds like there is a fair bit of conflicting information on this subject.
Please dispense with you partisan insult. Anyone who would spend their time parsing this administrations statements the way you do is clearly partisan. I am sorry if you cannot except that about yourself.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:31 pmPS sorry about the WA post, wa times thing, I got the two papers confused.
Terry,
April 28th, 2006 at 6:34 pmas far as I can figure all our government can do is a stop gap remedies. $100 rebates to drives, about 3.3 tanks of gas for me, repeal of the federal tax, that makes an 18 cent difference in price. I have a decent bike maybe I should move closer to work.
“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would tend to lower oil prices, he said”
so this quote coupled with Rumsfeld et al saying the war will be short, doesn’t say to you that gas prices will go down?
Seixon who is the partisan here?
April 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm#105 1. Windfall tax on oil company profits used for driving season tax holiday for consumers
So we should also tax software companies and pharmacutical companies and banks? Because they all have much higher profit margins.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:43 pm“The USA Today is taking a number from right before the war, most likely a single month figure. The 2.1M figure from OPEC is the monthly average for the whole year of 2002. You can’t compare a single month to a yearly average. Stupidone”
Bahaha, wow that’s a STUPID response. You really need to read the article. It points out that Iraq had spent years, and especially all of 2002 BUILDING CAPACITY. The average of 2002 is in fact typical deceptive propaganda - and EXACTLY what I expect from a Fascist propagandist like yourself. Or then again, maybe you’re just TOO STUPID to understand what ’sustained capacity’ actually means. Or maybe you’re just STUPID PERIOD - which is the most likely case.
“Krazny, you’re insistence on not reading my blog post because it might be harmful to your ego shows you are nothing but a partisan. You said you searched the Washington Post for it - why? It was in the Washington TIMES. Stupidone”
Well there’s your problem. The Washit Times is the MOONIE Rightwing Religious Fanatic equivalent of the National Enquirer. To expect a single accurate posting from that POS is to expect a ‘miracle’.
The fact you would even post anything from that RAG shows you’re both DESPERATE and RETARDED - bahaha, wow I’m REALLY EMBARRASSED FOR YOU - that you’d be THAT STUPID.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:43 pmI see I’m not going to get anywhere here. Why do you think Think Progress rewrote the excerpt Krazny? Riddle me that.
Lindsey said he was UNCERTAIN about what would happen, yet you claim he predicted that oil prices would go down. Ehmmm….
Seriously, why did Think Progress rewrite “would tend to” to “would”? Hmm? I know why, let’s see if you can figure it out.
In any case, when Iraq settles down and modernizes their oil infrastructure and starts pumping out 4-6 million barrels of oil per month, the oil prices should stabilize or go down. Of course, this will take time to happen, time Think Progress doesn’t have because Bush is president here and now.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:44 pmRyan, I don’t even think you realize how much of an ass you just made of yourself. You have no idea what we’re even discussing. I know you love just calling me a retard and all other sorts of lovely words no matter what the context is. Take your childish games elsewhere. Us adults are trying to have a discussion.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46 pm#107 #108 yeah i know i’m 45 and i’d rather hear any grundge and later band. #54 mentioned Neil Young, next it’ll be Arlo Guthrie or Joan Baez.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46 pm“So we should also tax software companies and pharmacutical companies and banks? Because they all have much higher profit margins. Comment by squishypoop”
Bahaha, wow you’re really stupid aren’t you son?
1) I suggest you look up return on capital investment. The oil industry claims to have some of the highest such numbers, over 30% in fact.
2) The numbers given out for ‘tax purposes’ aren’t necessarily reflective of profitability, or even relevant to the facts.
3) The oil industry is a COMMODITY business, not a value added business, or a ‘mob loanshark operation’, which is much of what banking has become. Please list a COMMODITY industry that has this level of profits? DUhhhhh
4) I’m all for putting windfall profits on both banking and/or pharma since both GREATLY EXPLOIT this country with poor business practices and exploitation.
5) Oil is a good place to start, but lets hammer all of those who use monopoly or excessively coercive practices to prey on america.
And you are a dumba@@ you Fascist moron.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:52 pmSexion,
you are right Think Progress rewrote the article a bit to have a stronger impact. They are also a progressive sight.
As for the claim of lower oil prices he did say if the war was swift oil prices would tend downwards. Please for the love of god keep in mind that everyone from Bush to Fleischer were saying things like the Iraq war won’t last more then a week or two, or maybe a month. Why would the public not put these two things together, especially when combined with Fox news and the rest of the right wing media trumpeting lower gas prices as a result of the war. It is a bit tortured, but the guy who is an official of the Bush administration publicly said on record that gas prices would go down. Frankly from reading the article there are fewer caveats then what you claim.
As for Iraq settling down, I don’t see that happening until US forces leave. And according to your dear leader the troops aren’t leaving while he is in the white houese. your predictions for 4 to 6 million barrels given that pre GWI levels were at 3.5MB seems a little optimistic. Maybe with massive upgrading they can, but then again they can’t get their sewers online let alone the complex oil fields.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:52 pm“Ryan, I don’t even think you realize how much of an ass you just made of yourself. You have no idea what we’re even discussing. Stupidone”
So says the guy who’s STUPID enough to quote the Washington Moonie Times - bahahah, now THAT’S RICH!!!!
” I know you love just calling me a retard and all other sorts of lovely words no matter what the context is. Take your childish games elsewhere. Us adults are trying to have a discussion. Comment by Stupidone”
Bahaha, yeah right, when you stop acting like a stupid teenage boy, I’ll stop treating you as one. And it’s YOU who’s playing the childish game of post the propaganda you retarded little brat.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:54 pm“In any case, when Iraq settles down and modernizes their oil infrastructure and starts pumping out 4-6 million barrels of oil per month, the oil prices should stabilize or go down. Of course, this will take time to happen, time Think Progress doesn’t have because Bush is president here and now. Comment by Stupidone”
You mean like Rumsfeld and his mouthpieces PROMISED would happen in a matter of 6 months after the invasion? Yeah, well, empty promises are what I expect from a Nazi NeoCon Nitwit like yourself.
The whole point is that this administration promised IMMEDIATE oil output increases - and not the ’slow and steady increase’ you’re now promoting.
Just like a typical republican, you change the game and the rules to suit you, and forget all of the previous claims, broken promises and flat out lies you’ve previously committed. You’re a FOOL, a COWARD and an EMOTIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL CHILD. Grow up Dip$hit.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pm#121 Ryan
1) I suggest you look up return on capital investment. The oil industry claims to have some of the highest such numbers, over 30% in fact.
2) The numbers given out for ‘tax purposes’ aren’t necessarily reflective of profitability, or even relevant to the facts.
3) The oil industry is a COMMODITY business, not a value added business, or a ‘mob loanshark operation’, which is much of what banking has become. Please list a COMMODITY industry that has this level of profits? DUhhhhh
4) I’m all for putting windfall profits on both banking and/or pharma since both GREATLY EXPLOIT this country with poor business practices and exploitation.
5) Oil is a good place to start, but lets hammer all of those who use monopoly or excessively coercive practices to prey on america.
1. Regardless of what their return on capital investment is, their total profit margin is still roughly 9% depending on the company. To seperate one aspect of their business that is doing well to make a point, means that your leaving out the other parts that are doing poorly, such as the chemical or refiniment processes, to get to the average of 9%.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:19 pm2. Where else do you propose getting figures from that are currently avialable?
3. My point was that people are having a knee jerk reaction to the total profit of the oil industry with out realising other industries have much higher levels of profit margins.
4+5. Fair enough, if your going to do one, do them all. But what happens when a company begins to tank, does the gov’t then have the responsiblity to give back some of the profits taken in windfall years that could have otherwise kept the company afloat when it hits hard times?
According to the eia, no month in 2005 exceeded 1.9 MBbl in production. Stupidone, if you’re going to talk about ‘numbers’, you might try using the official US government websites. As much as this government loves to misrepresent - the busy little bureaucrats are often quite capable of posting accurate information. When you compare that to the WashingtonMoonieTimes - there’s no comparison.
“The yearly average for Iraq’s oil production in 2003 was abysmal, yet did the oil prices surge? No. Comment by Stupidone”
Wow you really are the most Stupid and Ignorant man living in Norway aren’t you - you must be a redneck Cracker.
The answer is YES the oil prices did surge during that period.
I would have helped you out with some resources to CORRECT YOUR IGNORANCE, but then I remembered that you’re beyond help, and too STUPID to learn.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:23 pm#122:
you are right Think Progress rewrote the article a bit to have a stronger impact. They are also a progressive sight.
And why do you think they rewrote it? Because it didn’t say what they needed it to say.
As for the claim of lower oil prices he did say if the war was swift oil prices would tend downwards.
Would tend doesn’t mean it would. It’s the difference between a prediction and a generalized statement.
Please for the love of god keep in mind that everyone from Bush to Fleischer were saying things like the Iraq war won’t last more then a week or two, or maybe a month.
Eh, no they didn’t. Bush, even on May 1, 2003, said, “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
Quit making stuff up, it’s not fun.
Why would the public not put these two things together, especially when combined with Fox news and the rest of the right wing media trumpeting lower gas prices as a result of the war.
Can you provide any evidence of FOX doing this? I don’t think the public would put together a speculative statement from some no-name Bush official in an article in the Washington Times with other non-existent statements that you cannot show have been made, no.
It is a bit tortured, but the guy who is an official of the Bush administration publicly said on record that gas prices would go down.
No. He said that prices “would tend to” go down, if the war was quick and everything went smoothly. At the same time, he said he was uncertain about what would happen. Thus, this statement is false, which is why Think Progress had to rewrite what he said.
Frankly from reading the article there are fewer caveats then what you claim.
Really? All I said is that he said he was uncertain, and that the war would have to be done quickly and successfully, and even then he still said “would tend to” and not “would”.
As for Iraq settling down, I don’t see that happening until US forces leave. And according to your dear leader the troops aren’t leaving while he is in the white houese.
Using rhetoric from Kim Jong Il is a bit useless, isn’t it? Anyways, the US still has forces in Germany and South Korea. Bush was saying that we will still have forces in Iraq for some time to come in the same manner. Iraq won’t settle down until the Iraqi security forces are strong enough to take care of the problem themselves. All the foreign terrorists need to be rooted out, and the insurgents need to be quelled or persuaded to stop. Certainly the terrorists and insurgents will have less excuses to keep killing people if the US leaves, but that will not be the end of it.
your predictions for 4 to 6 million barrels given that pre GWI levels were at 3.5MB seems a little optimistic. Maybe with massive upgrading they can, but then again they can’t get their sewers online let alone the complex oil fields.
I’m talking about the long-term here. Saddam didn’t get all he could out of his oil fields, the vast majority of Iraq’s oil reserves are untapped and just waiting to be utilized. They could easily attain 6 million if they upgraded their systems to the level that Saudi Arabia has.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:24 pmRyan: Wow you really are the most Stupid and Ignorant man living in Norway aren’t you - you must be a redneck Cracker.
You done making an ass out of yourself Ryan? Yup, I’m a cracker alright. Some of my best friends in the US are Asian, and right now on my cellphone I have numbers for a “Mohammed” and a “Jamal”, both Muslim and Somalian.
I guess “crackers” come in different flavors these days.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:27 pmSlightly off topic, sorry
April 28th, 2006 at 7:27 pmPresident Bush announced his approval of a deal under which a Dubai-owned company would take control of nine plants in the United States that manufacture parts for American military vehicles and aircraft. He also skirted the committee who oversees these things and sent it “classified” directly to Hastert.
Bush has put a price tag on America.
He emphatically defended the national anthem today, yet, if he could get a UPC bar code on it, I am sure he would sell that too.
“2) The numbers given out for ‘tax purposes’ aren’t necessarily reflective of profitability, or even relevant to the facts. squishypoop”
If I have to tell you, then you’ve just demonstrated your lack of ‘qualifications’ to speak authoritatively on the subject - not that there was any question.
One place you might try is looking at their income statement:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=xom
The Gross Profit is 42%
The Operating Income is 18%
If you compare this to Merck or Schering Plough, you’ll quickly discover that the baseline revenues, profits and incomes of Exxon is completely out of whack with the ‘pharma’ industry for instance.
When you compare to banking - like Citigroup, it’s hardly even possible to compare. Why? Because a financial institution isn’t selling physical goods. The income sheet looks radically different. Banking is in fact the one industry that really can never be compared with any other industry. But a 32% interest on a credit card is good old fashion mafia loan sharking.
“3. My point was that people are having a knee jerk reaction to the total profit of the
oil industry with out realising other industries have much higher levels of profit margins. squishypoop”
And as you conveniently ignored, this level of profit is out of context with the fact they sell a commodity.
“4+5. Fair enough, if your going to do one, do them all. But what happens when a company begins to tank, does the gov’t then have the responsiblity to give back some of the profits taken in windfall years that could have otherwise kept the company afloat when it hits hard times? squishypoop”
Were you alive during the Chrysler and Airline industry collapse? What in the heck do you think the government already does? They generally bail out their industry buddies, even if they’ve been BAD corporate citizens like Exxon that games the market and exploits customers.
And besides, exploiting customers requires a FINE, and that’s what windfall profits represents. Your argument is strawman, and just plain stupid.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:41 pm