Oil Prices are 60% higher than they need to be... How do you combat that?

Oil Prices are 60% higher than they need to be... How do you combat that?
Posted Mon, 02/06/2008 - 11:49

Poll - The fact is that the oil is a purely manipulated inflated figure - So most likely over $2.

Question is when fully informed, what can Australian government and every day folk do about it?  - A conservative calculation is that at least 60 per cent of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6 per cent of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.

The hoax of Peak Oil
The problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact the world is in over-supply now. Yet the price climbs relentlessly higher. Why? The answer lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled oil price manipulations.

Ed Wallace is a recipient of the Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, given by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, and is a member of the American Historical Society.

World oil demand flat, prices boom …
The chief market strategist for one of the world’s leading oil industry banks, David Kelly, of J.P. Morgan Funds, recently admitted something telling to the Washington Post, “One of the things I think is very important to realise is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong".

The rest of this story

 

Digg This Del.icio.us Furl reddit Stumble it!
‹ The Japanese snub peaked ›

Beat down fuel pricing

Fri, 11/07/2008 - 12:12 — younglothario

I got an email sent to me that I thought was quite a nice idea.

Walking and cycling is not a realistic option for most whilst ideal. Not buying fuel is totally unrealistic and unsustainable...

But...if everyone boycotted just one petrol group's outlets across the entire country, and stayed resolutely buying from any others, with the forecourts and bowsers collecting cobwebs, across the country, the group affected would have to do something substantial to break the deadlock.

That as far as the consumers are concerned would be a substantial cost cut on fuel before they were tempted back. In turn if the competition knew of the luxurious position they were in, to maintain the huge competitive advantage they enjoyed, the competition would likely respond likewise to keep the customers from straying back to the dark side.

Since it is widely acknowledged that Coles are seen as the principle drivers of the petrol increases. Start there. The 4c off dockets are a complete scam, most other bowsers are already at the 'reduced price' Coles claim to be doing us all a favour..

What say you?

boycotts

Sun, 05/10/2008 - 03:06 — Myriam Robin

i don't think boycotting as you've suggested, of one company only to affect change, will work. 

1) its impossible to coordinate everyone to boycott the same company

2) its unfair to boycott the one company and not the others. while fairness to oil companies is frankly the last thing on most peoples minds, it is an important issue for all those who work in coles, which is a significant number of people. those people would always morally undermine any attempts to boycott their employer.

i think the only thing we can do for now is weather it out. a rising oil price is a necessary evil in order to make cleaner energies more attractive. it hurts, now, but maybe not moving off our dependence on oil will hurt more later.  

 

 

M, you've a healthy balance

Thu, 30/10/2008 - 21:12 — younglothario

M, you've a healthy balance view to an imbalanced system.

Fact is If we were to believe that it were all in the interest of cleaner fuel and alternate power R&D,  I'm sure we'd all stop our bellyachin and get on with what needs to be done. I certainly am all for it since I barely use any petrol.

But I do not believe it to be the case. If it were...

1. The enormous govt tax rake from fuel excise could easily be publicly declared as being allocated exclusively to suitable clean power developments. (Oh yes and while we are on it, do the same for the unfeasibly large cigs tax to go to health care which might currently see 5% of it)

2. Publicly listed, the fuel companies could easily quell the masses with a moral high ground statement that 'x% of fuel price profits' are allocated to alternate power R&D. It could be included in the publicly available Annual Statements. And all shareholders could rejoice and feel they are doing their bit.

Especially now, I can't see too many of the speculative shareholders warming to the idea that a meaningful slice of  erstwhile profitsharing be allocated to an industry development likely to be a major proponent in its own demise.

The independents doing what they can at losses, with other retailers supporting with goods, makes it clear. The only way to beat the giants is from within, where it hurts their revenues so they price match (up & down). Unfortunately the consumers take advantage until they are sucked dry, then the oligopoly lifts the prices straight back up.

The key is a considered, orchestrated and sustained boycotting of a major (Utopian granted). Fuel quailty is not part of the equation at the bowser, not many folk think beyond price. So they will have to drop pricing to try and lure folk back.

Sadly, Policies make no difference if they are enforced by the toothless tiger.