Enough is enough - gas prices are scary low

[Joseph Jove]

$50 a barrel would be the sweet spot. Cheap enough for the consumer, and high enough for oil producing nations to support its economy. Saudia Arabia is pumping out too much intentionally, screwing up supply and demand.

[Fish]

It's all going to pot, whether we like it or not. Best I can tell the worlds gone to hell, and we're all gonna miss it a lot. (willie)

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."

And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.

Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?

We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

How do you promote job security by boycotting employers and doing things to jeopardize their existence?

[Jeff Matthews]

$50 a barrel would be the sweet spot. Cheap enough for the consumer, and high enough for oil producing nations to support its economy. Saudia Arabia is pumping out too much intentionally, screwing up supply and demand.

 

If I was in that anarchy over there, I'd be raising lots of money, too.  You can't fault them for needing to get their hands on cash.

[rockhound]

This is a great topic and the debating is well informed on both sides. It's bad and it's going to get worse expect up to 5 years of sub 50.00 a barrel prices. Do you realize that at one point you could buy a bucket of fried chicken cheaper than a 55gal drum of oil? Like it or not we depend on O&G  for a lot more than just fueling our cars or providing heat to our homes. I can do without yardbird......

 

http://www.ranken-energy.com/products%20from%20petroleum.htm

[Jim Naseum]

The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."

And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.

Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?

We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

How do you promote job security by boycotting employers and doing things to jeopardize their existence?

You promote job security through economic policy. I don't know why you are suggesting boycotting.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

 

 

The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."

And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.

Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?

We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

How do you promote job security by boycotting employers and doing things to jeopardize their existence?

You promote job security through economic policy. I don't know why you are suggesting boycotting.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

 

 

It's not me suggesting boycotting.  It's people who would align in your camp.  Boycott Wal-Mart.  Boycott Microsoft. Boycott Chick-fil-A.  Boycott whatever capitalist de-jeur.

 

TBF, I am not saying you are urging boycotting, but you present these big outfits as evil demons which need to go away.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Jeff Matthews

[Jim Naseum]

The guy who just list his good job, and can't pay his mortgage, and has three kids and a wife to care for, thinks differently than, "oh, well, it's just progress. That's cool."

And when that is 75,000 guys in an area, and the grocer suffers and the barber and the tire shop and hardware store, they don't all say with a smile, "No fear! It's just progress!,"

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

I realize pain and loss are very real and personal things, but I am not talking about that. I am talking about progress. Eventually, buggy-whip makers are going to have to come to grips with progress, the same as ferriers. I never said it's easy, but one thing for certain is it is progress... and who really doesn't want progress? Count me out of that group.

Edit: The grand hypocrisy is often seen when the well-wishers want to see big companies like Microsoft take it on the chin. They feel for the little guy, but not the little guy's employer. Don't they realize the little guy depends on the health of the employer so he can get a paycheck and pay his mortgage?

We're not always making progress just because time is passing or TVs get bigger. Stability and security are unspoken demands of most societies. To the extent that there is no job security, there is no progress.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

How do you promote job security by boycotting employers and doing things to jeopardize their existence?

You promote job security through economic policy. I don't know why you are suggesting boycotting.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

It's not me suggesting boycotting. It's people who would align in your camp. Boycott Wal-Mart. Boycott Microsoft. Boycott Chick-fil-A. Boycott whatever capitalist de-jeur.

TBF, I am not saying you are urging boycotting, but you present these big outfits as evil demons which need to go away.

My advocacy is for economic policy that benefits American working class. Policy is intentional. So, when it hurts or helps workers, that is by intent.

Example: The NAFTA was an intentional policy, and it intentionally hurt American workers. So, I am against such policy. That's way way different than saying, boycott Company X.

Policy is how governments are supposed to direct the beneficial life of citizens.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited February 14, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Bella]

Here is a cut/paste of an article out today about the move towards NIRP by eliminating physical money. I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

Yesterday we reported that the ECB has begun contemplating the death of the €500 EURO note, a fate which is now virtually assured for the one banknote which not only makes up 30% of the total European paper currency in circulation by value, but provides the best, most cost-efficient alternative (in terms of sheer bulk and storage costs) to Europe's tax on money known as NIRP.

That also explains why Mario Draghi is so intent on eradicating it first, then the €200 bill, then the €100 bill, and so on.

We also noted that according to a Bank of America analysis, the scrapping of the largest denominated European note "would be negative for the currency", to which we said that BofA is right, unless of course, in this global race to the bottom, first the SNB "scraps" the CHF1000 bill, and then the Federal Reserve follows suit and listens to Harvard "scholar" and former Standard Chartered CEO Peter Sands who just last week said the US should ban the $100 note as it would "deter tax evasion, financial crime, terrorism and corruption."

Well, not even 24 hours later, and another Harvard "scholar" and Fed chairman wannabe, Larry Summers, has just released an oped in the left-leaning Amazon Washington Post, titled "It’s time to kill the $100 bill" in which he makes it clear that the pursuit of paper money is only just starting. Not surprisingly, just like in Europe, the argument is that killing the Benjamins would somehow eradicate crime, saying that "a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place."

Yes, for central bankers, as all this modest proposal will do is make it that much easier to unleash NIRP, because recall that of the $1.4 trillion in total U.S. currency in circulation, $1.1 trillion is in the form of $100 bills. Eliminate those, and suddenly there is nowhere to hide from those trillions in negative interest rate "yielding" bank deposits.

Chart of value of currency in circulation, excluding denominations larger than the $100 note. Details are in the Data table above.

So with one regulation, the Fed - if it listens to this Harvard charlatan, and it surely will as more and more "academics" get on board with the idea to scrap paper money - could eliminate the value of 78% of all currency in circulation, which in effect would achieve practically the entire goal of destroying the one paper alternative to digital NIRP rates, in the form of paper currency.

That said, it would still leave gold as an alternative to collapsing monetary system, but by then there will surely be a redux of Executive Order 6102 banning the possession of physical gold and demanding its return to the US government.

Here is Summers' first shot across the bow in the upcoming war against U.S. paper currency, first posted in the WaPo:

It’s time to kill the $100 bill

Harvard's Mossavar Rahmani Center for Business and Government, which I am privileged to direct, has just issued an important paper by senior fellow Peter Sands and a group of student collaborators. The paper makes a compelling case for stopping the issuance of high denomination notes like the 500 euro note and $100 bill or even withdrawing them from circulation.

I remember that when the euro was being designed in the late 1990s, I argued with my European G7 colleagues that skirmishing over seigniorage by issuing a 500 euro note was highly irresponsible and mostly would be a boon to corruption and crime. Since the crime and corruption in significant part would happen outside European borders, I suggested that, to paraphrase John Connally, it was their currency, but would be everyone’s problem. And I made clear that in the context of an international agreement, the U.S. would consider policy regarding the $100 bill. But because the Germans were committed to having a high denomination note, the issue was never seriously debated in international forums.

The fact that — as Sands points out — in certain circles the 500 euro note is known as the “Bin Laden” confirms the arguments against it. Sands’ extensive analysis is totally convincing on the linkage between high denomination notes and crime. He is surely right that illicit activities are facilitated when a million dollars weighs 2.2 pounds as with the 500 euro note rather than more than 50 pounds as would be the case if the $20 bill was the high denomination note. And he is equally correct in arguing that technology is obviating whatever need there may ever have been for high denomination notes in legal commerce.

What should happen next? I’d guess the idea of removing existing notes is a step too far. But a moratorium on printing new high denomination notes would make the world a better place. In terms of unilateral steps, the most important actor by far is the European Union. The €500 is almost six times as valuable as the $100. Some actors in Europe, notably the European Commission, have shown sympathy for the idea and European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has shown interest as well. If Europe moved, pressure could likely be brought on others, notably Switzerland.

I confess to not being surprised that resistance within the ECB is coming out of Luxembourg, with its long and unsavory tradition of giving comfort to tax evaders, money launderers, and other proponents of bank secrecy and where 20 times as much cash is printed, relative to gross domestic, compared to other European countries.

These are difficult times in Europe with the refugee crisis, economic weakness, security issues and the rise of populist movements. There are real limits on what it can do to address global problems. But here is a step that will represent a global contribution with only the tiniest impact on legitimate commerce or on government budgets. It may not be a free lunch, but it is a very cheap lunch.

Even better than unilateral measures in Europe would be a global agreement to stop issuing notes worth more than say $50 or $100. Such an agreement would be as significant as anything else the G7 or G20 has done in years. China, which is hosting the next G-20 in September, has made attacking corruption a central part of its economic and political strategy. More generally, at a time when such a demonstration is very much needed, a global agreement to stop issuing high denomination notes would also show that the global financial groupings can stand up against “big money” and for the interests of ordinary citizens.

Lawrence H. Summers, the Charles W. Eliot university professor at Harvard, is a former treasury secretary and director of the National Economic Council in the White House. He is writing occasional posts, to be featured on Wonkblog, about issues of national and international economics and policymaking.

And here is the article source:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-16/larry-summers-launches-war-us-paper-money-its-time-kill-100-bill

[Paducah Home Theater]

I told the wife several months ago that we're at war and don't realize it.  The nice folks in the middle east are waging oil war on us economically by flooding the markets.  I'm guessing one of their goals is to break the back of those fracking people and shut them down.

 

The question is, is the middle east waging war on us, or are we waging war on Russia and Venezuela?  Lots of smart people say the latter.  Think about it, before the market bottomed out and Russia was raking in money from their oil, which was about the only thing fueling their economy, how did they act?  Well, they started a bunch of sabre rattling, pressing their luck, being instigators.  Somebody had to let the wind out of their sails.  

[Jim Naseum]

Summers was the lead criminal in the financial fraud that tanked the economy ten years ago. His grand advice, that we can all look back on as a measure of his wisdom was to eliminate Glass-Steagall. Do we need more to judge this crook?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Of coarse NIRP can not work in a world where cash and gold are available. NIRP is a new method of "bail in." And the way to not participate is turn your assets into currency and gold. Simple math that even Joe Blow can handle.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

Saudia Arabia is pumping out too much intentionally, screwing up supply and demand.

 

Something to think about, Saudi is at virtually the exact same output as the were in 1980, yet everybody else is up over 20 million barrels per day since then.  Must be the arab's fault.  

Edited February 16, 2016 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Mallette]

Well, I suppose it's hit bottom when they offer a free fillup with a paid car wash...

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

Without comment.http://granitegrok.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2001-2012OilProduction-USvsSaudiArabia-560x392.jpg

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

To put global production in perspective... a 55 gallon closed head drum is 35" tall.  We are producing over 80 million of those, every day.  

 

End to end, that is 2,800,000,000 inches long, which is 233,333,333 feet, which is 44,192 miles.  

 

The circumference of the earth is 24,901 miles.  

 

Basically we can just about go around the world, twice, every day, if we put these barrels end to end on their side.  Consider the size of an open head drum and what's probably more like 82 million barrels and it probably is more than twice around.  

Edited February 16, 2016 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Bella]

The thing is, going NIRP will not accomplish the goals they are looking for. It'll be even more deflationary. And in a system designed to ever expand it's completely the wrong approach.

[Bella]

Summers was the lead criminal in the financial fraud that tanked the economy ten years ago. His grand advice, that we can all look back on as a measure of his wisdom was to eliminate Glass-Steagall. Do we need more to judge this crook?

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Mr. Summers is looking out for the best interests of the banking cartels. He doesn't care about you.

[Jim Naseum]

Bretton Woods didn't work. QE didn't work. ZIRP didn't work. In fact, nothing can make a debt-based system grow eternally. 

 

However, desperation knows no limits, and the central bankers can not be sitting by, or standing down when the economy of the globe implodes. If they extend the life of it by a day, they will try.

[Bella]

As I said, oil is the canary in the coal mine. Wild swings seem to be the norm now: up 5% down 5% the next day. This reflects instability in the monetary markets. Electronic money seems to be on the fast track.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-17/ban-cash-coming-soon

 

My sources tell me 2020 at the latest, which will involve a global one world currency. 

 

FYI this changes everything. Totalitarianism. Nothing moves and nothing changes hands without the various governments knowing about it or having a piece of it.

 

I've much more to convey but the timing isn't right.