Another victory for W.

__________________
Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies
but not terrorists.

A victory to be worse off than before he got in, by some serious margin? Celebrate when the pump price goes back down to what it was before the war

So you admit this wasn't a war for oil?

No, I'm one of the guys who "moves the cash". I trade stocks, options, and futures for a living.

Horse hockey.

T. Boone Pickens is one of the greatest oil men in the world, and here is what he says:

May 20, 2008
T. Boone Pickens: $150 Oil

CNBC just hosted oil magnate T. Boone Pickens this morning in a sit down interview with Becky Quick. Now that his $125 target on oil has been hit, he's making a new prediction on oil prices. He said oil prices are continuing to go up as 85 million barrels per day is as good as supply can get and 87 million barrels per day is the demand. He also said the president wasted his time going to Saudi Arabia asking for more oil.

Pickens just said he thinks oil could and will likely go to $150 per barrel this year, and that will translate to a deficit spending in the U.S. of $900 Billion rather than $600 Billion at $100 oil. As far as the old joke of $80 before he's 80, he did joke about $160 before he's 160 years old.
http://www.247wallst.com/2008/05/t-boone-pickens.html

What makes you think that will ever happen?

Speculators stopping hedging against oil. That will happen as long as supply stays consistent and either another investment looks more attractive to pension fund managers, or the sellers run out of scares to help keep it propped up.
It is an artificial bubble and it could shed 30% in a snap if the conditions are right. The producers know it,so the only people who will be telling you different are those who gain from the overinflated prices, ie fund managers and advisors who stand to benefit, and the oil companies themselves. Whatever the case, there will be a breaking point and some people are going to lose big, except at the pump [assuming gvt keeps an eye out for price fixing and profiteering].

I never thought it was , at least not overtly, because I don't think even this administration was so misguided to think oil would be getting returns at the pump for Joe Average for some time [if ever], however, war has always been a profit game. Anybody who tells you different is looking at their feet.
It so happens that a lot of people close to the president did fantastically well out of the situation, and it's no surprise that they happen to be oil-men and war service contract holders. I think even the most hardened supporter of the war has to accept that these guys close to the president have done enough to ensure a nice retirement.
I don't have much time for conspiracy, but money, well that's money.

If we are over there, we might as well be imperialist and get some Oil! When we went to war we were told that the war would pay for itself eventually with Iraqi oil (i.e the American consumer would pay insidiously) so, why has this not happened yet? Why is the price of gas so high? Why hasn't the war paid for itself and when will it start paying for itself? Why has the Iraqi government got a budget and trade surplus while we have a $1,000,000,000,000 deficit? I want answers.....

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn

I don't doubt it, but I doubt you're a big player. A big trader doesn't have time to be on a forum, nothing personal.








Horse hockey? Your article didn't say why prices are overinflated, just that demand is high. We already knew that. The problem is that prices are higher than they should be under the circumstances, and that extra steam is from speculators getting out of the crashed US housing investments. I posted you a statement by the head of opec to that effect, and his belief, along with a stack of serious money men, that this is the case. You can call it horse hockey if you want, but those are some serious people saying different. You'll excuse me if I tend towards their opinion rather than yours, even though I agree with facets of your argument and not the overall picture.


In any case, prices aren't based on what makes up overall world demand, they are referenced of west texas intermediate [edit correction], a low volume marker in Cushing, which I'm sure you already know.

I'll post another piece from the same article , just to make my point:


One of the world's 10 largest energy trading companies, Mercuria, is headquartered on Place du Molard in Geneva, Switzerland. From here, 70 employees analyze the market, dealing with such factors as tanker routes and inventory levels. Thirty billion dollars per year flow through the company's accounts.

CEO Daniel Jaeggi, a former futures trader for Goldman Sachs, knows exactly how the business changed in the late 1990s. "The big pension funds began to diversify their investments, increasingly putting their assets in oil," he says. The pension funds, according to Jaeggi, became the "driving factor in the market."


Wall Street banks were only too happy to service this demand, and Goldman Sachs was at the head of the pack. "They invented a new commodities index that also included oil," says Jaeggi. The new index was wildly successful, and the more major investors put money into it, the more oil contracts Goldman bought and the higher the prices went. An enormous market force had been created.

Everyone jumped into the game. Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and many other financial giants dramatically expanded their trading volume in oil contracts. Investment banks like Goldman even established their own oil reserves, acting as if they were energy companies like BP. They hoped to gain better insight into market events.

As a result, the trading volume in crude oil has almost tripled in the last five years, while demand for the liquid itself grew by only 1.9 percent per year.