Trust Dictionaries

I am going to leave this one up to Webster’s who seems to understand the nuances of Socialism and Communism vs. Capitalism.

The gripe I have is with Leftists who state a simple definition of Socialism as government owning production or the means of production. Some in media also use this definition. This has long been used as a blanket denial of socialism. One can say that definition is the hurdle and they are not advocating that. Thus, they blame you for misstating their position. It becomes a semantics argument. I reject that — and the approach.

That is why I believe Dem0ocrats are some of the most disingenuous or dishonest people there are. And why it is often pointless talking with them. They’ll throw these simple or deceptive meanings out there and expect you to comply with it. What is the point?

It is better to say government controls the means of production. Even that is a little flawed in today’s definitions of Socialism. They’ve been working at creating vagueness for years.

So here is the definition of Socialism and I encourage people to see this page for more information. Webster’s claims communism is one of their most looked up words.

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide

In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Then we come to the basic Hitler description of Socialism. Asked prior to WWII about abolishing private property, he wanted people to keep their private property just as long as they understand that they are agents of the state. In this way, government does not need to own production or private property, merely control it. While you may own it, you and the property are virtually controlled by the state. All they need is control.

That same philosophical distinction can apply to production. All the state needs is control, which can be achieved by regulations or other arms of the state. So that is the dirty thing Leftisits don’t want to talk about or you to know, as long as you accept their definitions.

US Largest Global Crude Producer

Now here is something the left probably never wanted to be number one at.

San Antonio Business Journal

Sep 12, 2018, 2:46pm CDT Updated 2 days ago Production in the nation’s shale basins has helped the U.S. surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest crude oil producer, preliminary figures from the Energy Information Administration show.

American exploration and production companies are now producing an estimated 10.9 million barrels of crude oil per day, according to the EIA’s latest Short-Term Energy Outlook report released on Wednesday. Based on preliminary data, EIA officials believe that crude oil production in the U.S. surpassed Saudi Arabia in February and surpassed Russia twice — once in June and again in August.

The figures mark the first time that domestic crude oil production has surpassed Saudi Arabia in more than two decades. Although the EIA does not publish crude oil production forecasts for Russia and Saudi Arabia, the agency expects that U.S. crude oil production will continue to exceed that of Russia and Saudi Arabia through 2019.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/news/2018/09/12/united-states-now-the-largest-global-crude-oil.html

Oops, the energy denier crowd is not going to like that. The second part of the oil issue is why the rise in gas prices? Now that sanctions will be back on Iran, it will be another excuse for higher oil prices. Though when they dropped Iran sanctions, the only beneficiary was Iran and a few of its trading partners. Of course on the left they would enjoy sky high gas and energy prices. At least for the time being congrats to US anyway.

Maher is now doing the walk of shame

Bill Maher is not letting any opportunity slide to bash Trump. He now hopes for a recession that would oppose Trump’s favorability. It finally came to this.

Well, the moonbats have gone completely crazy.

Bill Maher is ‘hoping for’ an economic collapse so he can ‘get rid of Trump’: ‘Sorry if that hurts people’

HBO host Bill Maher said Friday that he is “hoping for” an economic collapse because that is the only way the president’s opponents can “get rid of Trump.”

Maher first asked guest Shermichael Singleton to asses the current economy under President Trump.

“It is going well,” Singleton answered. “For now.”

“Thank you, that’s my question,” Maher added. “I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point, and by the way, I’m hoping for it.”

“I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it’s either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.”

The economy appears to be improving under President Trump despite his ongoing trade war with both China and U.S. allies.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/bill-maher-is-hoping-for-an-economic-collapse-so-he-can-get-rid-of-trump-sorry-if-that-hurts-people

How about maybe the bottom just fell out of Maher’s common sense reserve tank? He’s running completely on empty. At least now he said it, he is hoping for America’s demise. Are there any sane liberals any more?

First, they claimed the entire economy would collapse on Trump’s election. Now they are hoping it will. What’s left but sabotage? May Maher’s program be the first fatality.

I know, maybe we can fake out the Left somehow? They seemed much happier when the economy was tanking.

Market Maneuvers

Two things tripped my radar on the economy. First is the gas prices and the rise in oil prices.(71.00 ^) There is a point where it is counter productive to the economy.

I don’t know that exact number but already the gas prices are having an effect. And excessive inventories have gone down. Consumer demand goes down, even while the economy is heated up. So when does the lower demand cool the economy?

The second is a lesser known rise in lumber and building material costs. Lumber futures increased 66% over the last year. (Bloomberg) That’s stunning. What effect will that have on the economy? Maybe the better question is what effect will both factors have on the economy — and on growth? At a time when we are trying to break 3% growth.

China and the Left

I see a similarity of China and the Left here, aside from the communism ties. It is not a stretch, the political strategies align. You might say birds of the feather.

It is always about the goal with the left, as it is with China. The means are only the vehicle, to be discarded when the goal is achieved. And anything that achieves it is acceptable.

Regarding the trade deficit with China, and recent tariff announcements, Trump said that there may be some pain but in the end we will have a stronger country. That is the first time I heard a leader reference the long game of what we want. (okay maybe not first) A lot of people probably shuttered to hear that.

I bet that got the Chinese’s attention because he is referencing the long game. Something we don’t always stress. It shakes their predictability about us. In other words, that we would be willing to weather some pain to get to the benefit in the end.

See the strategy to Chinese is really as simple as the lefts’ is. Both are focused on the destination not on the means. Whatever the means matters little. The destination is king. That is the same with the Chinese. And If they really believe in their dominant end, and we know they do, then that tells the real story.

To Chinese they want to control or run the world. See if that is their goal then nothing else is important. Do you get it? If that is where they see themselves, at that point there is nothing anyone can do to them about anything — there’s nothing to negotiate. That may seem a fantasy to us, but if they believe it then it gives their strategy away. Once they are in the driver’s seat the game is over.

We, however look at this as a long term game that will continue. It won’t once they reach their destination. They will be the tyrants they want to be and it will be tough to anyone who disagrees. That is what they have in mind. Nothing like our goals or strategy. We want a working relationship, for the long term. They are just thinking as the short term until they get to their destination.They think none of this stuff will matter then.

It is the same type mindset the Left has. They look only at achieving their desired ends. Once that is done, nothing else such as rules apply. It is a king of the hill perspective. They plan on keeping the hill once they get it. That is the way their plans work. Do you see the similarity? Power is rule, and rule is permanent not temporary. At that point, all resources go to preserving and keeping that permanent rule. Sure, it is a scorched earth plan but so what? That is how they play. We are looking at it as a balancing act but they don’t want anything balanced. They want control and once you have it, you run the show. If we do not look at the end game, goals, of those like China, Russia, N Korea, or Iran, then we underestimate the game. The days of just ignoring it are dwindling.

This is why we, meaning media and talking heads, are concerned about a trade war. It’s a perpetual real war to China, and they plan on winning. So the state of a trade war does not matter to China at all. This is also why intellectual property is a major issue to us and not to them. Their end doesn’t see a problem with private intellectual property.

It is sort of the same thing as CNN or MSM worrying about so-called Russia collusion. while the rest of the country is concerned about trade. The two are not on the same wave lengths, like two different orbits. Which one matters?

Right Ring | Bullright

Privacy and use of info data

I’ve got a new thought. It might still have some wrinkles but I’ll throw it out there. All the attention focused on privacy and social media, I share your concerns. Then come all the news of Facebook selling your data info, without your permission or knowledge.

Surely they aren’t alone either. Obama pilfered data just fine. They cheered.

That said, who likes having their data used and sold off as a commodity? Then they promise you security. No, how about the owner of the info gets paid for their own information? What’s wrong with that? I like the idea that they pay me. Clicks and everything else is a cash cow for merchants of info. It is now a business model.

So how about they pay you for your data they want? We have a commodity they want, we create it. Why should we get cut out of the market? A middle man sells it off and you don’t know how it is used nor by whom. If it really is a market that is. That’s me. Glitches?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Left’s Hogg Business Model

Yes, give us a description how that anti-business model works. Inquiring minds.

The Media Matters thuggery behind the astroturfed boycott of Laura Ingraham Tolerance bullies.

Conservative Review — by Chris Pandolfo | March 30, 2018

Media Matters is once again using its tired, sleazebag astroturfing tactics to bully and intimidate those who don’t agree with its far-left agenda. This time, hiding behind a child, the despicable thugs are pushing for advertisers to boycott Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after she mocked 17-year-old Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist David Hogg, for which she has since apologized.

On Wednesday, Ingraham tweeted a Daily Wire story, “Gun rights provocateur David Hogg rejected by four colleges to which he applied,” adding “and whines about it.” Hogg responded on Twitter, asking about her “biggest advertisers” and tweeting “#BoycottIngramAdverts” [sic]. He later tweeted a list of Ingraham’s top twelve advertisers.

At 1:06 p.m. ET on Thursday, Ingraham apologized “for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland.” Yet after she apologized, at 2:15 p.m., Media Matters published a story on Ingraham’s “bullying” and linked to a list of her advertisers. Hogg rejected Ingraham’s apology exactly two hours after she issued it, saying “an apology in an effort just to save your advertisers is not enough” and demanding that she “denounce” Fox News’ coverage of the Parkland anti-gun activists, saying “It’s time to love thy neighbor, not mudsling at children.” The calls for an advertiser boycott against Ingraham continue, and according to Media Matters, nine companies have pulled their ads from “The Ingraham Angle,” including TripAdvisor, Joseph A. Bank, Hulu, Expedia, and Johnson & Johnson.

So a leftist social media mob has been organized against Ingraham, and there are a few important things to note.

First, this is not a grassroots effort led by Hogg. Media Matters has a long history of organizing boycotts against conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hogg’s age and his victim status as a Parkland survivor are a shield that cowardly Media Matters is hiding behind to obscure its astroturfing. His voice is a sword the organization is taking advantage of to launch an attack on Ingraham (and other conservatives). The media is complicit in this abuse of a child.

Second, this is not a campaign against Ingraham. It’s still going on after she apologized. The real target is Fox News and anyone in conservative media. Media Matters founder David Brock has previously described the mission of his organization as “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against the Fox News channel. In 2010, arch-progressive financier George Soros gave $1 million to Media Matters, noting, “Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast.” This group has an agenda, and it’s out to destroy those who disagree with it.

Third, it will not stop with Laura Ingraham. Media Matters has previously used its social media mob to go after several conservatives. This is far from the last time it will attempt this, especially if it succeeds in driving more advertisers away from Ingraham’s show. The Left takes pleasure in ruining the lives and livelihoods of conservatives who do not submit to their agenda. And if you do submit, if you do back down, if you do apologize, these petty tyrants will keep trying to grind you into the dust. Who will be next? Another conservative media host? A real estate agent who tweets something that upsets the Left? Will they destroy her business? Or a doctor’s? A mechanic’s? ~ ~ [see]

 
Being schooled by children? Ed-U-K-shun.

But we’re told to lighten up. Then we’re attacked for supposedly attacking or hating the kids. I know I was.  Like we just hate kids. Saying anything back to or about these kids constitutes an “attack”. What kind of nonsense have we slipped into?

Now businesses are supposed to kowtow to the whims of children, who make the rules, law and decide who you should do business with. They decide where you can advertise or, more importantly, where you can’t. That’s a business model?

The world is supposed to look at this and say it is normal? What is wrong with all those that comply? Okay, corporations, do you want to turn the reins of your company over to children who can barely drive? How responsible is that? What does that portend for the future of the country or business?

So you liked those eyeballs a few years ago when you were targeting them as your captive audience of TV viewers. But now that they are intervening in your board room and bottom line, you just have to suck it up. There is nothing you can do about it.

Who makes your decisions?

As I have said here before, is that really how much you care about your company? These kids were obsessed with Nickelodeon while you were building a brand. Now you are going to turn the integrity of that brand over to children? And you can’t do anything about it but give it to them? I guess I’m confused…and disappointed.

David Hogg lists a bunch of businesses to boycott because of tweets from Laura that some universities have rejected him. Shouldn’t he be boycotting the universities? Oops, seems he already is. I guess it is how he deals with rejection. Somehow she’s the bully.

What is it called when you bully businesses into taking actions or making decisions to suit you, on a sliding scale? And instead of these children going on a national political campaign, shouldn’t they focus on the local politics and policies that led to this avoidable shooting?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Migration of Money

As the world turns, money also moves from place to place. Well, I mean wealth. There was an interesting report a year ago showing the statistics of wealth moving about the world.

While not completely detailed with cause and effect and all, it is a 30 thousand foot view anyway of the movement among wealthy people of different categories. And a report about the supper rich and billionaires. This was for 2016, so I wonder what it is this year?

There were some surprises. Interesting trends.

Among countries losing millionaires(in their definition) by migration between 2015-2016 are: France, China, Brazil, India, and Turkey. In that order of loss.

The countries gaining millionaires by migration are: Australia, US, Canada, UAE, and New Zealand. Australia in the lead and the US second.

A total 41,000 leaving those countries, and a total of 38,000 moving to the gain countries.

The wealthiest places in the world ranked as having the most millionaires by region: Asia-Pacific 5.1, all North America 4.8, Europe 4.2, Middle East 0.6, Latin America 0.5, Africa 0.2.(the place with the diamonds?)

Existing wealth of billionaires by region: Asia-Pacific had 590 billionaires, US had 540 billionaires, Europe had 489 billionaires, according to Forbes in 2016.

See links in this order.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-country-is-no-1-for-millionaire-migrants-and-its-not-the-us-2017-02-27?mod=MW_story_top_stories

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/for-the-first-time-america-is-no-longer-no-1-for-super-rich-2016-06-23

Key Ref: https://www.worldwealthreport.com/

UBI: universal basic income

From Futurism

  • Bill Gates has said he doesn’t think a UBI system would work right now as countries do not have enough money and should first focus on helping specific groups of people.
  • With automation poised to displace millions of workers in the coming years, many countries do think UBI systems are worth testing out.

In theory, a universal basic income (UBI) would be great. Under such a system, all citizens of a country are entitled to an unconditional amount of money on top of income they already generate through other means. It could spur productivity, improve health, alleviate poverty, reduce crime, raise education, and improve quality of life. It’s also especially relevant, given the reality of automation taking over more and more jobs.

More: https://futurism.com/4-bill-gates-thinks-countries-arent-ready-for-basic-income-yet/

Many people claim 2017 is the year UBI sweeps across nations. But when even Bill Gates cautions that it may bot be ready for prime time — or we for it — well, that is not an encouraging sign for them.

I guess the left are busy pushing the 15-dollar minimum wage now anyway.

And why not just give everyone a portfolio of stocks too — a basket of their choosing within a fixed dollar amount? I mean while they’re at it.

Red Scare strikes the Left

After being deemed albeit irrelevant by Obama in 2012, the Kremlin worry is back. This time inflicting the Left and whipping them into a frenzy.

This time Hillary is leading the anti-Russia charge. Reset to Red Scare. But what won’t she do to try to pull off her anointing, even if she has to use Russia to accomplish it?

The new Red Scare? Russia ups role in world events, US elections

(CNN)The Cold War was supposed to have ended a quarter of a century ago.
But Russia is commanding center stage in a presidential election for the first time in decades and President Vladimir Putin is being portrayed as a sinister puppeteer looming over the bitter contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Democrats have blamed him for orchestrating a huge cyberespionage operation using stolen and leaked emails to sow chaos and distrust in America’s democratic process ahead of November’s election. Putin’s even been accused of cultivating one of the candidates in the election — Trump — as an unwitting agent to further his quest to strangle US global power.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia/index.html?sr=twCNN091516putin-trump-obama-clinton-russia0454PMVODtop

So the progressive, Marxist Left has found a useful whipping post along with Trump. But of course it is only for campaign election purposes. At the very same time, Kerry was making a “cease fire” deal on Syria.

Obama, after all, followed the Kremlin footsteps on Syria. Leading from behind the iron kurtain. They couldn’t have asked for a better stooge. And Obama promised Medvedev and Putin “flexibility” in 2012. Now they are collecting.

Suddenly, the Leftists awoke to see Russia scare everywhere. Gee, I wonder what could have sparked that? Now they see Russia directly involved in our election.

Well, that’s odd, considering Obama and the entire left mocked Trump for mentioning election fraud problems in our system. In a grand speech from the White House, Obama said Trump didn’t even have a valid concern until after the election.

Finally, Hillary found something other than the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy to blame. Russia has already coined a new term for it called Russiaphobia.

Now the Red Scare is back with a vengence, temporarily anyway. Hackers in Russia have nothing over the political hacks here on the left. Maybe Russia will start running ads?

What message Brexit sends

Once again the infamous CNBC anchor puts his finger on the button — or trigger. Rick Santelli, who kicked off the Tea Party movement by his trading floor statements on taxes, said the Brexit vote was a decision against globalism. Not the market kind of globalism but the elite political type of globalism — or Globalist control.

But there was the problem with the diagnosis. If the political ruling class elite going out of control in its many regulations was the problem, then what could be the solution? Well, it is a little hard to call for reform of an abject global elite ruling class — unaccountable to the masses. That does not seem a viable option. How do you reform an elitist political power who by its own definition and existence thinks it knows better?

“Bureaucrats in Brussels” is a political power that is out of control, operating on its own as a sovereign, unaccountable authority. Exit seems like the only option. And who wants Brexit to be successful? That all sounds familiar.

Oligarchy is ” government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” (Britannica)

Brexit was the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the DoI echo those sentiments.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Typically, the results of the vote was blamed on things like a hard line group of people. It was xenophobia, nationalism, racists, anti-immigration types according to Brexit critics. When even advisers on the Cameron side admitted that most of those voting to leave the EU were not of that sentiment. But it makes for great labeling. In fact he claimed most weren’t associated with the branded “controversials” like Nigel Farage — the effective campaigner and leader of a leave the EU movement in the UK.

Some call this a “nativist politics,” short for ugly nationalism which they despise. That’s funny, isn’t it? Aren’t “all politics local?” They resort to names and pejoratives. Why the rush to demonize the rational voices who call for an EU exit, or who question the entrenched political power here in the US? They have to blame it on something, and cannot blame global elites and their arrogance of power. Much easier to blame the people who resent it.

Tony Blair said the anger replaces the more rational voices. But it is the more rational voices calling into question that entrenched, elite power which is speeding out of control. The elites are out of touch — not the solution to the problem. Leave it to the Gobalist and liberal elite mindset to define our resentment as the central problem.

Now they all worry about the “fallout” from the Brexit decision. Well, we have all been experiencing the “fallout” consequences from the strangleholds of elite Globalists, and their all-encompassing agenda.

Interesting too was who the supporters were. All the cast of clebs and famous, including political elites, were stuck in the remain in the EU position. At any cost? They did commercials and ads to stay in. Leftists and liberals lined up, surprisingly. ^

Hillary twists the referendum result into a US mandate for her experience and calmness.(achem) But if it is a referendum on anything, it is an indictment on the very elite ruling class like heiress Hillary, and her world-wide trail of failures. It makes the case for her?

It does illustrate her big problem in this election. She cannot now associate herself with a movement for sovereignty that calls out elitists or globalists. She is one of them, the poster child for globalists — with no spine, only a bank account and family Fundation. So they turn to demonizing the very people who use rational reason to get out of such entanglements. She represents the entanglement culture of political Globalism. Expect nothing else but for Hillary to demonize anything that may oppose her as sexist, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, ignorant or crazy. So she is also calling the majority of Britons the same.

RightRing | Bullright

New American System

A troubling thought:

“Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.”

Obamism and Neo-fascist America

By Steve McCann – August 10, 2015 | American Thinker

The philosophical foundation of the American Left and the Democratic Party is a proprietary hybrid of Fascism. While in lockstep with the economic and political tenets of Fascism, the unique feature of the current American iteration is anti-nationalism as reflected in the belief that the United States is the locus of malevolence in the world as compared to militant nationalism of Italy and Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.

The concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American Left since Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR that initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the Government the final arbiter in labor issues. The National Recovery Act governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce and the Agricultural Adjustment Act which introduced central planning to agriculture. It is generally acknowledged today that this approach by Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by another five years. (Jonah Goldberg’s masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the fascist roots of today’s liberalism.)

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Left, while nominally in favor of Marxism, had as their foundational tenets narcissism and rampant anti-Americanism. However, as the societal and economic seeds of Fascism were already planted and generally accepted by a sizable segment of the populace, it was a short logical leap, therefore, to become proponents of the economic and political precepts of Marxism’s closest cousin. […/]

Continue reading>

Once again, remember the top quote, from the closing of the article:

Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.

This was published before Democrats first debate, which was more less a coming out party for the new American system. The emphasis was about socialism, but in the background is all this ideological baggage that goes with and into such a system.

As the article suggests, Obama has gone a long way in instituting — beyond setting the foundations for — this toxic system. And a key component of all his efforts was to make each element hard to rip out at its roots. We see how hard it’s been trying to weed out ObamaCare, which is only one of the things he planted. The EPA regs, the Iran deal, illegals and his executive amnesty are just a few more. Throw sanctuary cities on top.

Of course we talk about getting rid of them but have yet to do it. Plus Obama is not through yet. Even one or two are troubling, but combined together they all have an even greater effect. (one on one they make up the fabric of the greater whole) Add to it his social justice component which is just another economic tool. We were in trouble as a country before but now with what he has done, what are the odds that we can undo it all?

Strange benefits become problems

Oil, oil everywhere and not a place to put it. That is the state of the coming problem analysts see headed for us. Well, there could be worse problems to have.

According to a writer for Motley Fool, they have a prediction for gas prices this summer you might not dislike.

Why Gas Could Plunge Below $2 a Gallon This Summer

Rising oil inventories in the U.S. could lead to sharply lower prices at the pump this summer.

Travis Hoium Mar 26th 2015 | Daily Finance

The price of gasoline has plunged 30 percent in the past year to $2.45 a gallon nationwide, giving major relief to American consumers. Plunging oil prices have driven the drop and have given a reprieve to consumers who have been paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas for most of the past four years.
But the discount on gasoline may not be over. Just as the summer driving season approaches, drivers may get another reprieve. This time, the oil boom that is driving the U.S. toward energy independence could backfire and provide a massive discount on gas for consumers. Within a few months, we may be below $2 a gallon again.

Read more at Daily Finance>

So we are in for a summer of surprise, that at least has more credibility than Obama’s summer of recovery that never came. But I’m sure Obama will find a way to personalize this to his credit, at the same time warning of Climate Change Armageddon.

UN on climate: tough job, struggling on

UN Climate Chief: We Are Remaking The World Economy

Daily Caller — 2/5/15

The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.

“He[Obama] has not only spoken about his commitment both to his national agenda on climate change, but also to the international process, and has been quite clear in his political leadership,” Figueres said, touting the EPA’s success cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

More: http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/climate-chief-world-economy/

Of course there could be a reason that it is so difficult. (I for one am happy it hasn’t proved easy) But nothing deters them. It is necessary for government to control all markets. Climate Change is code for control and change the economic system under global despots.

And they are complaining it isn’t easy?

Not only do they detest resistance to their agenda, they want to make it impossible. We should start calling it the climate change caliphate.(aka Climate Caliphate)

Russia under the gun

The incredible shrinking Ruble.

The ruble’s collapse is disastrous for Putin – and bad for you too

by Geoffrey Smith |December 15, 2014 | Fortune

A financial crisis would make the Kremlin more unpredictable, wreck western banks and heap misery on the Russian people.

Russia’s ruble is melting down faster than you can say “Vladimir Vladimirovich”. That’s nothing short of disastrous for him–but it ain’t good for you either.

The ruble fell a jaw-dropping 11% against the dollar Monday. Even when seen in the context of the dollar routing all emerging market currencies (Brazil’s real fell 1.2% and South Africa’s rand 1.5%), a move like that is straight out of the Financial Crisis Handbook–completely unsustainable. Russia has seen nothing like it since it defaulted on its domestic debt in 1998.

Given President Vladimir Putin’s status as the West’s new bogeyman, the temptation to rejoice ….

See details and the possibilities:

http://fortune.com/2014/12/15/the-rubles-collapse-is-disastrous-for-putin-and-bad-for-you-too/

At the risk of celebrating someone’s demise, it couldn’t have come at a better time. (late as it is) Be honest, if it were us they would be dancing in the streets. Sorry, I don’t see a good reason to temper my exuberant glee. This article cautions that. And the message their tentacles send to every enemy of ours will be swift.

The important thing to remember is this is absolutely not Obama’s doing. Though like Obama, Putin has a good blame game — probably even better at it. Obama’s regime and Democrats have forgotten what a threat Russia is(has been) — if they ever knew.

However, Obama is as ill suited to correctly deal with Putin and the effects this will cause, as he has been all along. Obama cannot afford another hit on his credibility, while Putin is still riding high on popularity. If Putin seemed out of control before, he’s about to get more unpredictable. The forecast already was a 4.5% shrinkage next year in their economy.

Oil dip continues – mounting effects

More on the collateral damage of declining oil. The theme continues.

Enterprise Halts Plan for Bakken Oil Pipeline as Prices Collapse

By Robert Tuttle and Lynn Doan | Dec 12, 2014 | Bloomberg

Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD), the second-largest midstream company in the U.S., canceled plans for a pipeline delivering Bakken oil to Oklahoma amid plunging oil prices and competing pipeline projects.

There wasn’t enough interest from potential shippers to go ahead with the project, Houston-based Enbridge said in a statement today. The line would have carried 340,000 barrels of Bakken a day to the Cushing, Oklahoma, storage hub from North Dakota starting in 2016.

U.S. crude futures have fallen 37 percent in the past three months to a five-year low of $57.81 a barrel today amid a surge of U.S. output. The Independent Petroleum Association of America warned last month that crude producers in the Bakken shale region and other tight-oil plays will probably trim output next year because of the price drop. True Companies, Hiland Partners and Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) are among those developing pipeline projects to move more Bakken to market.

Enterprise’s decision is “not really surprising, given the other competing pipeline projects that are under way to delivery oil out of the Bakken,” Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates LLC in Houston, said by telephone today. “In totality, all of these pipelines add about another 1 million barrels a day of takewaway capacity out of the Bakken, which really makes the Enterprise project questionable.”

Bakken crude has traded at an average discount to U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude of $5.38 a barrel over the past year, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The discount reflects the costs of transporting the crude from North Dakota to refineries. The oil was assessed at $52.56 a barrel today, $5.25 below WTI.

North Dakota’s Bakken formation supplies more than 1 million barrels of oil a day. At the end of last year, there was pipeline space for about 583,000 barrels a day of it. That’s forecast to grow to 773,000 by the end of this year and to as much as 1.7 million barrels a day by the end of 2017, according to the state’s Pipeline Authority.

Oil that can’t be shipped by pipeline is sent in rail cars, at a cost of $10 to $15 a barrel. [Bloomberg]

The reporters: Robert Tuttle in Calgary; Lynn Doan in San Francisco

See related video Bloomberg – “Oil’s Slide: Is it a good or bad thing?”
oil settles

Oil illusions and/or delusions – pt 2

(Part 2)
What is interesting is that for years we heard the Mid East production level adjustments, such as OPEC’s or Saudis’, had little to do with the price we were paying for refined goods. When we complained in general about high oil prices, we were told their decisions and production had really no effect on overall prices. We are always reminded that supply and demand are driving those prices. It’s the hidden hand of the economy.

But now we have a situation where Saudis are actively flooding the market with their oil to drive oil prices down, which makes it hard for others to do business. So are they now admitting Saudis’ production control has an effect on prices? Yes, they are. Flashback to all those times we were told it was only consumer demand, no foul. We were imagining things. Remember, they said the free market was setting those prices. Which is it?

Apparently, someone woke them up and told them the power they have over oil prices. Who let that out of the bag? Do you think it took them all these years to realize it? And took our domestic fracking ability and development to show them? Anyway, now they know the dirty little secret and are using it against us to curb our ability to produce.

Here is a newer article examining the issue that Saudis are at war with our domestic production. He compares this reaction to the subprime bubble, and presumably meltdown, as the perfect analogy.

As soon as oil’s price headed in the undesired direction in this highly leveraged market, the dreams evaporated, just as they did in the highly leveraged housing market. The debt of the most indebted producers, now losing money, is worth less than face value. Their creditors will eventually recognize losses. As previously noted, the one wrinkle is that so many producers are governments. They have not, in most cases, explicitly backed their debt with oil revenues, but they had assumed those revenues and based their future spending plans on them. Call it “soft” debt. — Robert Gore; straightlinelogic

Long ago I figured if Saudis’ had real fear about Iran, they could put pressure on the market and oil prices, which Iran is dependent on. This would have the effect of sanctions. Maybe this is what they did, or maybe they are only reacting to us? If we listen to these economists, Saudis are responding namely to us.

I admit having a bias that I prefer to buy gas below 3.00 to paying about 4.00 per/gallon. (or at 2.00) At 4.00 per/gallon, the fracking is more profitable. So am I supposed to be happy knowing they are producing and growing, and just pay 4 dollars and shut up?

I realize how much high prices affect the whole economy. So that works in favor of my bias for lower prices. Am I to say: our economy is sputtering and people can’t afford the high costs… but at least we are producing more oil, thank goodness? I’m not there yet.

On the other hand, should I worry prices will decline so far the market will collapse to where no drilling is profitable? Well, I already heard one person put it this way: ‘you have to produce something before it is consumed.’ IOW, oil must be profitable to be produced, so we can consume it — in all its forms. If it is not, we will not have it available.

But in that case, prices would go up due to lacking supply, per supply and demand.

Here is an interesting article about the scoreboard

Biggest Winners and Losers of International Oil Price Crash

By Isaac Arnsdorf Dec 4, 2014 | Bloomberg

Oil prices around the world have fallen more than 38 percent since the year’s high in June.

Among the winners are airlines, which are saving on fuel and not reducing fares for customers. Bank of America Corp. predicts earnings will gain 73 percent in 2015.

Saudi Arabia flexed its muscle at November’s OPEC meeting by overruling other members, showing that it’s still the dominant producer. The desert kingdom needs oil at $83.60 a barrel to balance its budget, according to the International Monetary Fund, but it’s got $736 billion in reserves.

Apollo Global Management LLC, the New York buyout firm run by billionaire Leon Black, announced the sale of shale driller Athlon Energy Inc. on Sept. 29 — before oil dropped 29 percent.

More on Bloomberg

See the list of winners and losers. Saudis need 83.60 and currently it is below that, though they have substantial revenues.(they should) Iran needs 117. And we know that OPEC members cheat on quotas anyway. They probably want to sell what they can even at a lower price. But I don’t see articles about the negative effects to them.

I know it’s a complex issue. Yes, lower prices are hurting the producers, like fracking and development. It is in Saudis interest that we decrease our production.I understand the price declines are undermining fracking. Hey, there’s an angle for the enviro-gurus. They should favor lower prices. Though judging market effects as either good or bad is tougher. And motives can be almost as hard.

[My past article]

RightRing | Bullright

Oil illusions and/or delusions

(Part 1 of 2)
I posted a piece on the current oil price decline. I could be wrong on my interpretation. Now that I think more about it, I just don’t know.

There are many different angles and factors in the issue. I decided to list some of the variables in an attempt to put the pieces on the table to get a full view, not to prove one view or another. I just thought it would be interesting to see the components.

Basically there is a view catching wide reporting that the decline in prices have hurt the domestic oil industry, and in particular Texas. Some reports describe it as a Saudi war on Texas. The narrative is that Saudis are flooding the market with oil with the intent to hurt our production, namely shale and fracking businesses, which are more cost intensive than cheaper Saudi oil.

A lot of people believe that and follow that line of reasoning. I’m not so sure. I wrote the previous piece off the cuff in reaction to a couple reports I saw getting widely spread. A few days later and I see more reports from economists with the same perspective. It has me wondering am I the lone person who questions that? Did I miss something or am I making a mistake, as sometimes happens? Am I too quick to jump to conclusions or is my bias getting in the way? There can be different opinions.

By nature some reports are kind of hard to understand and complicated anyway. But then I am no economist, and many of these people are degreed academics. I generally have some healthy skepticism and especially when I see piling on a theme. In the end, maybe there is no correct view, and maybe it cannot be seen in just one way.

Supply and demand. This is the talking point that we have heard most in the last 6 or so years. They claim it is market forces driving the high consumer prices we have seen, and actually come to accept as the new normal. This explanation is so institutionalized that we had countless investigations on higher oil prices only to be told it is just supply and demand. Those investigations don’t reveal any gimmickry, so we’re told, and no market manipulation. In fact, reports are no one can manipulate the industry. The very idea would be absurd.

There are investors and traders and hedge funds, oh my. We hear they are the ones to blame for prices. They call them speculators. They bid the prices up to higher levels. There is an awful lot of trading going on.

Cheap oil flooding the market. In the latest analysis the Saudis are leveraging their low cost oil by flooding the market in an attempt to lower costs, making higher cost production less profitable, if at all. This will stop the investment in these processes and stop the industry in its tracks. This is the point of the current reports.

Consumer demand. We will buy something at a marketable price. But in theory the higher the price is the less you will buy, or the less you want to buy it. As prices moderate or come down, you sell more of it. So even in a down economy people will buy just what is necessary, sometimes taking from other expenses. Especially at rising, or higher prices, other goods are affected because they have less money to spend. So people cut back in discretionary spending or luxury areas to offset the higher prices at the pump. Plus they cut use of the product in any ways they can. But other areas of the economy have to be affected because a bigger chunk of the money is going to a particular necessity. For instance less for clothes, food, and less disposable income.

Subsidized economies. Some countries subsidize certain areas of the economy. Many oil rich countries have lower consumer prices due to government subsidies. Some governments own or control the resources and depend on those resources for revenue to fund their government.They make budgets and decisions based on price projections.

Taxes. the money paid to gov’t on refined goods. Higher prices bring higher taxes.

OPEC, a group of oil rich nations allying to make adjustments en masse on production etc.They meet frequently to discuss their issues and concerns. (That I compare them to the Genovese crime family is neither here nor there — they are what they are) They can move or function as a bloc. They have a union concept working for them.

Oil companies, international or domestic, that produce and explore for resources. (Or if you are a card carrying leftist, the bad guys) Private companies in this country making decisions based on a bottom line profit margin, which employ many people. They are involved in production, transportation, refining, storage etc.

Government, involved in regulating, making regulation, protecting resources and assets. Also dispenses permits and approvals, and has oversight capability. It also collects revenues on the business models, as well as on consumer goods, such as refined products.

Retail businesses: Stores that sell finished goods directly to the public consumers.

Fracking and shale oil newer and higher cost drilling operations.

Cost – benefit analysis study of the benefits derived from the cost of materials and production, and projections or decisions based on those factors.

Industry and bulk users corporations and industry that use a particular commodity as basic in their business models. Airlines, freight, energy companies.

Speculators or investors and put hedge funds in this bracket. People or companies investing in oil based on its price fluctuation or performance over a period of time. People buying futures as in any other market, who hope to make a profit. (Such as Hilary’s pork belly futures)

Now, the idea is not to make some grand conclusion by these factors. Just say these are some relevant tangents in the overall picture.

RightRing | Bullright

Insurance Health…not health insurance

Everyone is concentrating on Healthcare, non-Affordable Healthcare at that. Maybe we should first look closer at the health of insurance rather than healthcare insurance? To that end at least one person has dared to go there in this column.

The Only Obamacare Fix Is For Obama To Legalize Real Health Insurance

Paul Hsieh — Op/Ed | Forbes
11/17/2013 [a few excerpts]

The President has proposed a one-year “fix” to deal with the political fallout from his broken promise (or lie), “If you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.” Now it’s, “If you like your plan, you can keep it until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Maybe.” But the problems with ObamaCare go much deeper than cancelled insurance. As surprising as it sounds, most Americans never had real health insurance to begin with — and were not allowed to by law. And the only cure for our current health insurance mess is to legalize real health insurance.

What most people consider health “insurance” is actually genuine insurance combined with inefficient pre-paid medical care. Contrast that with standard car or homeowners insurance policies. Those plans protect us against unlikely but expensive events, such as a bad car accident or a house fire. But we don’t use car insurance to cover routine predictable expenses such as oil changes.

…/

Suppose someone today wished to buy an insurance plan that covered only serious illnesses and accidents (and otherwise pay for routine health expenses with his Health Savings Account.) For many people, that would be an excellent combination. Yet he would not allowed to by law. Because of legal mandates, insurers may not sell such plans, and individuals may not purchase them.

ObamaCare did not create these problems, but does double down on them. Hence, to fix those problems, we’ll not only need to repeal ObamaCare but also prior bad laws.

…/

In addition to specific policy proposals, we need a broader national conversation on the proper functions (and limits) of government. Hence, I was encouraged by this recent Chicago Tribune editorial editorial that observed:

Accept that government doesn’t know what’s best for everyone. That people can decide what coverage they need and can afford. A strong marketplace offers choices for every wallet. Obamacare’s rules curtail those choices.

Such discussion is a good step in the right direction. Instead of debating which new government entitlements to create, we should be vigorously debating which freedoms to restore.

The president’s proposed “fix” won’t work. The only lasting “fix” is freedom. Legalizing real health insurance would be a damned good place to start.

See entire column:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/11/17/the-only-obamacare-fix-is-for-obama-to-legalize-real-health-insurance/

What a novel concept, putting the health in insurance.