Ah, drag out the ol' ad hominem when you've got no further ground. Ok, I accept that you yield. I also recognize that your inability to discuss with any rational thought, this or any other point on the forum (see the Ron Paul attacks on the other thread which I did not respond to). I believe this is due to your support for Israel (if memory serves from watching your previous attacks on other Ron Paul threads) which would also explain a lot about you. I will give you the last word before I put your moniker on ignore. Go on, have at me. Enjoy. Just do it quick, because I don't want to waste any more time on you, alright?
I agree with the premise Tsing Tao, that high gas prices SHOULD be bad for Obama, but the liberal media is probably just going to ignore the price of gasoline, until Obama gets re-elected.... Networks Hype Gas Prices 4 Times More for Bush, Than Obama By Julia A. Seymour | February 22, 2012 | 11:08 Change font size: A | A Rising gas prices used to be big news, but not so these days. Although the national average climbed to $3.56 on Feb. 20, setting a February record after going up nearly a month straight, there was far less coverage than in 2008. Broadcast networks repeatedly covered the rise under the Bush presidency. Gas prices bounced around eventually reaching $3.56-a-gallon on April 24, 2008. The Business and Media Institute analyzed broadcast network news references to gas or fuel prices between Jan. 20 and Feb. 20, 2012 and from March 24 and April 24, 2008. BMI found that in the 2008 period there were more than 4 times as many gas prices stories, news briefs or news headlines on ABC, CBS and NBC as there were in 2012 (97 to 21). Coverage during the time periods differed not only in quantity, but in tone as well. During Bushâs tenure, gas prices were a huge economic threat and cause of suffering. The networks also used the high gas prices to attack the administration. In 2012, the networks aired mostly matter-of-fact stories on the rising gas prices, and worried primarily that they would hinder the economic recovery, not that they are making people suffer. Dismal broadcast network reports about âskyrocketingâ gas prices filled the newscasts in 2008. There were reports about businesses closing, airlines struggling and truckers protesting -- all because of the high prices. One ABC report said families were facing the âtough choiceâ between food or fuel. Others said that âwallets were running on emptyâ and consumers were told over and over that there was no relief in sight. But by the end of November 2008, prices had collapsed to $1.82. The networks werenât simply reporting the painfully high gas prices in early 2008 though, in many cases they were exaggerating them. NBCâs âTodayâ focused on Redwood City, Calif. on March 6 where regular gasoline cost $3.99, according to the photograph NBC aired. The national average for gas that day was $3.19 a gallon. Ann Curry also failed to tell viewers that California has the highest state gasoline tax in the nation, a whopping 45.5 cents a gallon at that time. On gasoline specifically, reporters have routinely showed photos of extreme pump prices despite lower national averages. The Business and Media Institute documented this trend in 2007, 2006 and 2005. But now, in 2012, gas prices stories are very different. â[W]eâre seeing gas prices creep up every single week,â said one ABC reporter after delivering a positive economic report about the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing in on 13,000 for the first time since 2008. One CBS story just pointed out that if certain steps are taking against Iran, gas prices everywhere could move sharply higher. Although the time periods BMI analyzed were the same length and ended with the same national average price for gasoline, due to price fluctuations they were not identical. In 2008, prices rose from $3.26 to $3.56 in the month we examined. In 2012, prices were already higher ($3.38 on Jan. 20). Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-...-prices-4-times-more-bush-obama#ixzz1n81h6RFe
Thank you, but I did not ask (nor do I disagree) as to the level of greedy people 20 years ago. What I asked was whether you believe the amount of $$ related to speculation today is the same ( in dollars, mind you ) that it was 20 years ago. I'm sure you'll consider the rise in the money supply when you answer.
Oil and gas exhibit correlation on a large scale but diverge wildly in shorter time frames due to refinery considerations and local taxation. You've got to make gasoline so there is a production element and a storage element and a transport element. Surely you can see that. There is lag and hysteresis and basic supply/demand considerations at work with regard to gasoline prices. Its simple and true. When I'm wrong I generally 'fess up. There are plenty of threads where I've done that. In this case I believe what I'm saying is correct. If crude and gasoline were tightly coupled then you would see homogenous prices across the country. That you can deny that the refining stage has anything to do with the price of gasoline simply strikes me as stupid so I've said so. If that is ad hominem then I guess it is what it is. Your own charts make the case. QED
Thank you for the civil response. Agree on the shorter term, and on the longer term. I was stating my case in the long term. I understand the short term variances due to refinery capacity and taxation, or even impacts on the price of gas because of the push for alternative fuel sources, and how that relates to food prices - none of this is in dispute. My only point in this thread is this: Obama cannot affect the price of crude, which will (in the long term) mean he will suffer the consequences of higher gas prices as well. The number one thing he can do to reverse it's effect is to reign in his pal Ben (assuming he wants to reverse it - which is in question, as you have said and i cannot disagree with). The unprecedented rise in the money supply around the globe (beginning with our beloved fed) has caused a massive run up in commodity inflation, not the least of which is manifesting itself in the energy market, and is finding it's way into gas prices. At the end of the day, Obama - whether responsible personally or not - will suffer the consequences of high energy prices in his re-election bid. That is my sole argument. Your disagreement is not ad hominem, and you know that is not what I mean. The "jackass", "child" and ron paul attacks (unrelated to anything in this thread) are. And you know that, too. I did not treat you in such a way, so let me know if you want to be civil or just insulting. Not that you probably care, but that will affect whether we discuss future threads together or not.
The media will probably ignore it, just as you say. But unlike other world events, the population of this country can get the cost of gasoline updates at the pump each and every day. They don't need the media to tell them anything about that. It'll manifest itself just fine.
Amazingly, it looks like the GOP might just put Santorum up there. I am all for that. It will end the social conservatism debate for awhile. I think Americans will pay 5 dollar gas before they see a President Santorum.
Your retraction is appreciated. If I offended in any way whatsoever, I also apologize. Now let's focus on what I believe is our common goal - to see someone other than Obama in the White House.