posted on January 30, 2003 07:04:57 PM new
austbounty,
"You speak of the right to free markets, and yet oppose any Idea of the Middle East, having the upper hand in oil sales, even when they quite plainly own it.
HYPOCRICY."
You are correct. There is no free market for oil. Did you ever hear about something called OPEC?
posted on January 30, 2003 08:06:26 PM new
Tex1
By speaking of free markets, and USA loosing control of it,
I was not meaning that prices would go up.
I am told that Iraq CAN produce and sell oil @ $14/barrel.But USA can not because their production techniques and resources are not high enough to do so.
Being that you are a Texan, (I’m assuming by your ID) then perhaps you may be able to correct me if I’ve heard wrong.
Please enlighten us,
Does opec set min &&& max price.
I’m not saying Iraq will sell oil cheaper out of benevolence, but just cheap enough to beat the competition, which USA can not continue to do.
As they would if they could. After all that is dubya’s claim.
If anyone is capable of selling oil cheap while maintaining profitability, its' the Middle East, Not USA.
Stoping Middle East oil flow will only make oil more expensive.
This may be ok for ‘SOME’ Texans’ wealth, dubya included, but on the whole the bulk of the populous will bear the burden.
Unless of course; dubya gains control and does away with the imbalance in supply, to his favour.
This of course does not mean that he WILL sell it cheaper, Just that Iraq WON’T be able to.
posted on January 30, 2003 08:25:17 PM new
That is a complex question, but to to boil it out, as much as possible: Price is determined by supply and demand. The producing countries can't controll demand, but they can, and do, controll supply. If the Saudi's were to turn all of their wells on, the price would drop below $10.00 per barrel. The US is a net importer of oil. We pay the going market price for our imported oil.
The thought of fuel cell cars scares the carp out of OPEC.
posted on January 30, 2003 10:06:31 PM new
"The US is a net importer of oil. We pay the going market price for our imported oil."
This is a fair concern, but it does NOT necessarily mean that the typical US citizen will suffer.
But wouldn’t it be fair to say that ; people like the Bush Monarchy would be the ones most likely to see a NEGATIVE monetary impact.
Take a look at people like prof51, in another chat, he points out that an expected petrol bill per anum for a man on the land may be like his @ US$1,100.
When you consider the net worth ‘$’ of the ‘average’ nay the TYPICAL American citizen (meaning the highest number of US citizens) just think of how much more wealth as a % they will be able to save with a heavily reduced fuel bill.
And some of the ‘oil producing’ land in Texas will be so cheap that more typical US citizens will have the luxury of owning their own homes and STILL have enough money to buy their kids something more in time.
Unfortunate that people with all the OIL LAND and interests in the USA will probably the ones to lose the mo$t.
Imagine what Detroit could achieve in the electric car market.
posted on January 30, 2003 11:14:35 PM new
::Please enlighten us,
Does opec set min &&& max price. ::
From the OPEC website.....
OPEC is an international Organization of eleven developing countries which are heavily reliant on oil revenues as their main source of income. Membership is open to any country which is a substantial net exporter of oil and which shares the ideals of the Organization. The current Members are Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
Since oil revenues are so vital for the economic development of these nations, they aim to bring stability and harmony to the oil market by adjusting their oil output to help ensure a balance between supply and demand. Twice a year, or more frequently if required, the Oil and Energy Ministers of the OPEC Members meet to decide on the Organization's output level, and consider whether any action to adjust output is necessary in the light of recent and anticipated oil market developments.
The Oil and Energy Ministers of the OPEC Member Countries meet at least twice every year to co-ordinate their oil production policies in light of market fundamentals, ie, the likely future balance between demand and supply. The Member Countries, represented by their respective Heads of Delegation, may or may not alter production levels during these regular Meetings and any Extraordinary Meetings of the OPEC Conference. Given that OPEC Countries produce about 41 per cent of the world's oil and 55 per cent of the oil traded internationally, any decisions to increase or reduce production may lower or raise the price of crude oil.
The impact of OPEC output decisions on crude oil prices should be considered separately from the issue of changes in the prices of oil products, such as gasoline or heating oil. There are many factors that influence the prices paid by end consumers for of oil products. In some countries taxes comprise 70 per cent of the final price paid by consumers, so even a major change in the price of crude oil might have only a minor impact on consumer prices.
posted on February 16, 2003 06:24:50 AM new
Thanks for posting that, Reamond!
excerpt...
Though both officers testified that they warned the boy to stop running, the suit says the troopers were lying.
Graham said her investigation recently has turned up several other witnesses, including state police officers, who will confirm that some officers involved in the police investigation of the shooting conspired to cover up the fact that Ellerbe was shot without cause.
The lawsuit charges state police and the two troopers with wrongful death, the unconstitutional use of deadly force, violation of the boy's rights to due process and equal protection, gross negligence and infliction of emotional distress, the pain and suffering of the boy's survivors, and the survivors' emotional distress caused by the wrongful death.
The lawsuit also alleges at least two unnamed employees of an undisclosed agency or agencies aided the two in covering up the truth.
"We have evidence that other officers were involved with the investigation and knew ... that the actions of Nassan and Curry were covered up," Graham said. "They engaged in a conspiracy to cover up and ratify their actions."
Ellerbe's death has been decried in Uniontown and throughout the region, pointing to the coroner's jury clearing of the two officers as another example of police officers killing black suspects without justification and getting away with it. Ellerbe was black. Nassan is white, and Curry is black.
"We have been disappointed with the investigation that has taken place so far. We are dissatisfied with the state police officers investigating their own," Graham said.
"We hope this vindicates Michael's death," she continued. "He was a 12-year-old boy, posing no threat, and he was shot in the back."
posted on February 16, 2003 07:39:14 AM new
GEE WHAT WOULD YOU THINK THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY TO SAY? "
THEY WERE IN THE RIGHT, WE JUST WANT TO PROFIT SOMEHOW."
IF SOME REAL FACTS COME ABOUT THAT THESE TWO ARE LYING THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT, BUT COMING FROM THE MOTHER'S ATTORNEY MEANS NOTHING.
posted on February 16, 2003 07:57:30 AM new
I see ID's proliferating like rabbits around here lately. I think that I will adopt a new ID and become an evil witch in order to feel welcome. Let's see...I could be "evilwitch" and I could approve of shooting kids in the back. Then, as Linda says, I would "fit in".
posted on February 16, 2003 04:02:20 PM new
There are limits on what a plaintiffs attorney can say. There must be some evidence to back it up or the case won't even get past the judge.
The attorney is also working under a contingency fee, if there is no case he/she loses a bundle on money and a lot of time.
The article also stated that there are witnesses that refute what the cops said happened. In fact there would have to be other witnesses because the only other person there is a dead 12 year old and he's silenced.
