SCOTUS overturns the D.C handgun ban
- Thread starter dbk
- Start date
Oil was around $99 January 1. About 90 days later it was somewhere in the low $100s. Since then it's gone up to $142. So even though the IRS is telling us they have to **** with the mileage exemption because people are driving at a historically low rate and people are trading in their cars or just idling them completely, it has anything to do with demand that the price went up 40% in 90 days?
It's all fun and games until the Big Three, all their U.S suppliers, the trucking industry, and the aviation industry, collapse. Is it all speculation? I doubt it. But we've reached prices where demand has taken a precipitous fall, and the price continues to rise unabated. When companies who have hedge funds loaded with oil contracts come out and say "Oil is going to $150, then maybe even $200!" and it rockets, that's bullshit. I wish I could buy stocks and then say "Hey guys, XYZ is going to go from $60 to $150 in 365 days" and make myself a few hundred million. Wouldn't that be nice? And the best part would be, my scenario wouldn't potentially cause economic catastrophe!
It's all fun and games until the Big Three, all their U.S suppliers, the trucking industry, and the aviation industry, collapse. Is it all speculation? I doubt it. But we've reached prices where demand has taken a precipitous fall, and the price continues to rise unabated. When companies who have hedge funds loaded with oil contracts come out and say "Oil is going to $150, then maybe even $200!" and it rockets, that's bullshit. I wish I could buy stocks and then say "Hey guys, XYZ is going to go from $60 to $150 in 365 days" and make myself a few hundred million. Wouldn't that be nice? And the best part would be, my scenario wouldn't potentially cause economic catastrophe!
FlorIdaho Chris
Yeah, I've got one.
B O N Y
MODERATOR & FGT OWNER
Amazing to listen to the cocktail circuit chatter:-
-late 90's day trading and Greenspan did nothing to curb margin buying and p.e. Ratios meant nothing.
-first half of the new century filled will real estate speculators convinced of sustained double digit growth. Bank directors and regulators choose to disregard fiducary duties and write loans to anyone with a pulse.
-now the fast buck crowd is discussing 'easy money' trading commodities.
Commodities will be the next train wreck.
-late 90's day trading and Greenspan did nothing to curb margin buying and p.e. Ratios meant nothing.
-first half of the new century filled will real estate speculators convinced of sustained double digit growth. Bank directors and regulators choose to disregard fiducary duties and write loans to anyone with a pulse.
-now the fast buck crowd is discussing 'easy money' trading commodities.
Commodities will be the next train wreck.
skyrex
FORD GT OWNER
I just recently had my first hundred dollar fill-up (granted I live in CA, but still). Most of the Forum members are doing pretty well, so this uptick in gas prices is more of an annoyance than anything.
However, for the most people this is a serious issue that affects their quality of life. Yes, people can drive less/do less, but that is a simplistic answer to a complex problem. For example people have to get to work, but now it costs them 40-50 percent more to get there in less than a year. Imagine that all of your current expenditures went up across the board by that amount. It would have a negative impact on your household. I have never heard of a cost of living adjustment that would take care of that.
Before you think I have some whacked liberal views, I don't. Worked my way through college, bumped around until I started my own businesses (twice, first time....ouch). I consider myself pretty conservative and think that on a whole the work ethic of our country could use a massive jump start. But the great thing about the U.S. was the strength of our middle class and the fact that if you wanted it bad enough you could work hard and get ahead. The middle class is shrinking and these frauds like real estate and oil price manipulation hit those people the hardest. And the people making all of the money had to know better. The money lost when "the bubble bursts" is significantly more than is made and generally is not felt by the guys who made the money, but by the society at large. Every company should be able to make a profit, but there are reasons that laws were enacted to prevent monopolies and to prevent price collusion. Because it is wrong to screw the little guy.
I remember when a hundred dollars was a meaningful sum of money, not just a tank of gas. :frown A running joke with my wife used to be that I can't leave the house without have to spend a C-note. Sadly now I long for the days when that was actually true because now it seems to be a whole lot more. Guess I can take solace in all those Amex card points :willy.
Random thoughts to get me back on track: Women, cars, travel, guns, my dogs......ahhhhh. :biggrin All the real important things in life that keep me going. :cheers
However, for the most people this is a serious issue that affects their quality of life. Yes, people can drive less/do less, but that is a simplistic answer to a complex problem. For example people have to get to work, but now it costs them 40-50 percent more to get there in less than a year. Imagine that all of your current expenditures went up across the board by that amount. It would have a negative impact on your household. I have never heard of a cost of living adjustment that would take care of that.
Before you think I have some whacked liberal views, I don't. Worked my way through college, bumped around until I started my own businesses (twice, first time....ouch). I consider myself pretty conservative and think that on a whole the work ethic of our country could use a massive jump start. But the great thing about the U.S. was the strength of our middle class and the fact that if you wanted it bad enough you could work hard and get ahead. The middle class is shrinking and these frauds like real estate and oil price manipulation hit those people the hardest. And the people making all of the money had to know better. The money lost when "the bubble bursts" is significantly more than is made and generally is not felt by the guys who made the money, but by the society at large. Every company should be able to make a profit, but there are reasons that laws were enacted to prevent monopolies and to prevent price collusion. Because it is wrong to screw the little guy.
I remember when a hundred dollars was a meaningful sum of money, not just a tank of gas. :frown A running joke with my wife used to be that I can't leave the house without have to spend a C-note. Sadly now I long for the days when that was actually true because now it seems to be a whole lot more. Guess I can take solace in all those Amex card points :willy.
Random thoughts to get me back on track: Women, cars, travel, guns, my dogs......ahhhhh. :biggrin All the real important things in life that keep me going. :cheers
B O N Y
MODERATOR & FGT OWNER
1968 I paid $100 for a suit and that was a milestone for me.
1988 I was paying $1000.. Today 3 or 4 times that amount for like quality.
Top Napa Cabernets are $150+ per bottle, Bordeauxs many times more and require years.
The good life costs.. No complaints. So far since the Carter administration inflation has been under control..
I remain optomistic and fully invested in a deversified portfolio. However, feel the pain that many suffer.
1988 I was paying $1000.. Today 3 or 4 times that amount for like quality.
Top Napa Cabernets are $150+ per bottle, Bordeauxs many times more and require years.
The good life costs.. No complaints. So far since the Carter administration inflation has been under control..
I remain optomistic and fully invested in a deversified portfolio. However, feel the pain that many suffer.
The Supreme Court vote was a narrow 5-4. With 4 justices voting to allow the gun ban in D.C. to remain. The verbiage of the Second Amendment is clear and unambiguous. Liberal believes that the Constitution is outdated and not applicable to life in the 21ST century.
Rather than seek an amendment to modify the laws of the land, as is the proper procedure, they change the Constitution by slanted interpretations that lack validity.
So, as we ponder the shortcomings of John McCain, the alternative could put more liberal justices like Ruth Badder Ginsberg(former head council for the ACLU) into one of the most influential positions in America.
Rather than seek an amendment to modify the laws of the land, as is the proper procedure, they change the Constitution by slanted interpretations that lack validity.
So, as we ponder the shortcomings of John McCain, the alternative could put more liberal justices like Ruth Badder Ginsberg(former head council for the ACLU) into one of the most influential positions in America.
To paraphrase Ron "Tater Salad" White ... I know I have the right to remain silent here ... but I just don't have the willpower.
If Obama is elected, he'll very likely be appointing 1 or 2 SCOTUS justices. WE CAN ALL BET THE FARM HE'LL NOMINATE REPLACEMENTS WHO MAKE GINSBERG LOOK LIKE NEWT G.
So, if you think the 'court is screwed up NOW..........:bang:bang:bang :beer2::beer2::beer2::beer2:
Last edited: