Rolling Stone: Bush Worst President Ever?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Massive debt incurred which has yet to be paid off, leaving other Presidents the task of increasing taxes in order to do so... lots of ways. Granted, the idea looked spiffy at the time as employment increased and the economy started to boom, but even in Canada we're still paying off the debts incurred during the 80s by our own leaders. (Except in Alberta)

I got ya, I thought you meant that we were reaping the benefits 20 years later or something like that. No doubt it had lasting effects, with most of them being negative.

My mistake.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The way the Soviets used communist doctrine to develop an oppressive state was their undoing, NOT Ronald Reagan.

You're banging on. There is one more reason why USSR collapsed though. Throughout whole its history, russians economy was completely based on its tremendous natural resources. Russia was an obscure country before industrial era and became a superpower in industrial era, when resources, first wood and coal, then oil and gas were keys to domination. In 70s-80s the world had become entering into a post-industrial era, when resources, while important, are no longet allow one to dominate. Russians, who are not able to do anything but sell their resources, were simply getting outworked by more creative, hardworking and organized nations like americans, west europeans and japanese. It's quite clear for most people in Russia (and our goverment say it openly), that whole russian economy is merely based on oil&gas export.

When people look at collapse of Soviet Union, they vastly overrate this "communistic" factor. In fact, the mankind have entered post-industrial era and resource-based Russia just couldn't play a major role anymore.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Um, control doesn't occur until after the war, wars tend to disrupt supply. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

It's an interesting graph, for sure. I'm still wondering why gas prices are so high right now, but it might have to do with oil refineries getting destroyed by Katrina, or some such thing.

In the long run, though, if indeed this war is all about securing oil fields, military expenditures would have to be calculated as part of the cost of oil--albeit a part that is hidden from consumers. I'm wondering whether it's a sustainable strategy at 280 Billion $ a pop.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well, if the US ensures their control over the supply, they ensure the price stays down. Here's an interesting chart...
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

You'll notice that after the Iraq-Iran war, the price of gas went down significantly... why? The supply was ensured.

OPEC will only let the price of oil fall so far. Every time that a big supplier returns to production (Iran & Iraq in early eighties, Kuwait in the 90s), OPEC decreases production, to stop the price from dropping too much.
When the current factors limiting OPEC production (limited production in Nigeria, Iraq, and Venezuela) are resolved, OPEC will likely do the same again, assuming Iran hasn't limited their production.

OPEC's control is the primary reason that oil prices have rarely dropped below 1.40 US/G (using the adjusted prices). This is the problem with the whole idea that the Iraq war will produce lower prices; prices were right along the historical average prior to the war on Iraq.

So we'll likely see as much as a decade of inflated oil prices, after which, OPEC will cut production to ensure that prices don't drop that much below pre-war levels. Yes, the whole war will result in huge profits for the oil companies, but it will not result in a decrease in pipe at the pump to below pre-war levels.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by octothorp

OPEC will only let the price of oil fall so far. Every time that a big supplier returns to production (Iran & Iraq in early eighties, Kuwait in the 90s), OPEC decreases production, to stop the price from dropping too much.
When the current factors limiting OPEC production (limited production in Nigeria, Iraq, and Venezuela) are resolved, OPEC will likely do the same again, assuming Iran hasn't limited their production.

OPEC's control is the primary reason that oil prices have rarely dropped below 1.40 US/G (using the adjusted prices). This is the problem with the whole idea that the Iraq war will produce lower prices; prices were right along the historical average prior to the war on Iraq.

So we'll likely see as much as a decade of inflated oil prices, after which, OPEC will cut production to ensure that prices don't drop that much below pre-war levels. Yes, the whole war will result in huge profits for the oil companies, but it will not result in a decrease in pipe at the pump to below pre-war levels.

You think that the US drilling for a increase in their own supply of oil, taken together with Canada's(Alberta) ever increasing oil supply can somehow take away the influence that OPEC has?

Or how would you solve the problem?

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think that the US drilling for a increase in their own supply of oil, taken together with Canada's(Alberta) ever increasing oil supply can somehow take away the influence that OPEC has?

Or how would you solve the problem?

Well, right now, OPEC doesn't necessarily have a lot of influence. They've operating only slightly under their reserve capacity (almost all of that capacity in Saudi Arabia, I think). If a few more billion barrels a day are lost (say, if Iran slows production, or if demand increases by a similar amount), they'll actually be unable to fill all of the demand. OPEC is really only effective at making sure the price doesn't get too low; they can do little to make sure that it doesn't get too high, especially with current world events.

You're right, upping north-american production would be a big help, and since the start of the Iraq conflict, there's been significant increase in the number of completed wells in the US; they're at their highest rate since the early 80s. The danger for the western oil industry is that if they increase production and then suddenly the disruptions in Iraq, Venezeula, and Nigeria stop, then there will be a huge crash, rather than a correction. So they're being very cautious, and the significant increases to pump price right now are largely an anticipation of the huge crisis that will occur during the summer if supply actually goes beyond demand; I don't think the oil companies want that to happen, so they're making the pump price increases now, to try to change consumption habits over the summer and hopefully avert that crisis. At least, that's how I read it.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So they're being very cautious, and the significant increases to pump price right now are largely an anticipation of the huge crisis that will occur during the summer if supply actually goes beyond demand; I don't think the oil companies want that to happen, so they're making the pump price increases now, to try to change consumption habits over the summer and hopefully avert that crisis. At least, that's how I read it.

That would be collusion and illegal. . . . . and also giving more heart to those companies than they've earned.

You're basically seeing market forces at work, without heart or thought and certainly there is a "risk premium" being built into the market.

Although I see that Bill O'Reilly at FOX says the oil companies are tearing the shirt right off your back and hosing you damned good!!! What a strange fellow he is.

Some other scattered thoughts on the topics in this thread:

Historically, OPEC appears to like having the price of oil within a target range that both encourages consuming economies but also discourages alternative energy sources.

Not too warm, not to cold. That is the way OPEC has attempted to manage oil in the past, sometimes with success and other times without.

That was the lesson a politicized OPEC learned from the 1973 oil embargo.

In 1973, not only did they kill western economies, but they also killed themselves since oil is the only export of note most of those counties have.

They're more dependent on oil than the west frankly, a lesson we often forget.

Regarding Bush and the economy, stock markets are typically described as leading indicators, looking out six months to a year at what an economy might be doing at that time versus what it might be doing at present.

Its not unusual to see a stock market declining when times appear to be prosperous and rising when things seem to be going to heck in a hand basket. The old Wall Street saying of "When the blood is running in the streets, that's the time to buy" is quite apt.

Alan Greenspan described the stock market expansion of the 1990's as "irrational exuberance" that was bound to have a kamikaze ending . . . . he made that comment in 1996 . . . . yet markets continued on a pretty much straight curve upward until March of 2000, Greenspan issuing warnings all the way.

Bush had been President three months when markets collapsed in mid-March 2000, some would saying finally caving in to the relentless, multi-year pressure of Greenspan raising interest rates to slow things down.

The resulting carnage saw market losses reaching about 50% from peak to trough - the deepest since 1973-74 - with negative returns for three straight years, the longest such period of negative stock market action since 1939-41.

I'm not a fan of Bush economic policies, but it should be obvious to any impartial observor that kind of flatlining from a leading indicator - which turned out to be prophetic - came largely out of the 1990's, not three months of a Bush tenure.

Below, an excellent and accurate article today in the Bush hating LA Times on the current state of the global economy, as well as the economies of western democracies.

The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.

Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.

Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.

Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers.

"This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role," said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.

The trend is being driven by free trade, which has created millions of jobs in emerging nations in recent years, fueling stunning new wealth in those countries.

China's meteoric rise has been well-documented, but the boom has spread far and wide to include much of the rest of Asia, as well as Latin America, Eastern Europe and Africa.

With commodity exports and tourism surging, the South African economy grew about 5% last year, adjusted for inflation. That was nearly four times the average growth rate of the major European countries.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,4555498.story

Are the decreasing numbers of anti-globilization protesters wrong?

Also, an amusing look at the Iranian economy from the Bush hating New York Times.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/01/news/iran.php

Cowperson