On December 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm, chapoutier said:

Nor did I assume you were limiting yourself. Your posts are usually clear and make a good thought provoking point. I would argue that the NRA (and I am not a member) is actually upholding the 2nd amendment to the constitution for all Americans, which is a noble goal, as opposed to La Raza or the NAACP which only looks to further the cause of a specific race/ethnic group (something that would be demonized if a group esposing the same policies for whites existed). IMHO, ethnic grievance groups create more animosity toward their groups than they solve. The oil lobby, I agree. They have an economic interest wiht no regard to what is best for the nation.

Your assumption that ACORN and other liberal groups are only out to further their constituency, regardless of the consequences to society, should be counterbalanced by opposing gorups views is ideal but not reality any longer.

To be clear, I did not limit myself to “liberal” groups. I don’t expect the NRA or the oil lobby or any gorup, however you would label them poitically, to worry about what is objectively best for the country (though I am sure they would all say that their interests and the nation’s interests are coincident). I expect all of them to agressively pursue their selfish (I mean that non-pejoratively) interests.

On December 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm, chapoutier said:

What you wrote made sense. Your assumption that ACORN and other liberal groups are only out to further their constituency, regardless of the consequences to society, should be counterbalanced by opposing gorups views is ideal but not reality any longer. The libs have done a masterful job of making PC so pervasive in society, and the mantra of the MSM, that there are no truly organized resistance groups to their harmful demands and policies. Anyone who opposes them is shouted down as a racist. Although just a term, receiving that label in public has dire consequences to someones private life (your job as businesses can’t afford to have the bad publicity is just one example). So there is no true oppostion to shut down thier ridiculous demands.

I also agree on the good intentions gone awry. It proves the old saying, “the road to h*ll is paved with good intentions”. For example, an immigrant detention facility outside my city is up for renewal. It holds illegals and their families (including children) for deportation hearings. It’s more like a resort (a far cry from jail) than a prison though. The do gooder lawyers and usual ethnic grievance group suspects are demanding it not be renewed because it holds children who “did nothing worng, it was their parents actions”. As well as the illegals did nothign really wrong (that is another argument). If they win, they will have sent a message to any contemplating comign illegally, “bring your children along and the Americans will not detain you”. Essentially encouraging parents to use their children as shields and to place them in dangerous situations. Of course, when that problem arises, the do gooders will demand somehting else be done or changed leading to new unintended consequences. It never ends and all the problems that come with uncontrolled immigration increase. But by golly, they shut down a faciltiy designed to (and paid for by taxpayers) provide a safe detention for children and illegals rather than putting them in an unsafe environemtn like a jail. If we don’t detian them then hter is no reason to have immigration laws at all.

Why the infatuation? Do we have some latent homos here?

However, the largest category of defaulters is the middle class, not the low income (I’m uncomfortable with the term “minority”) borrowers. Yes, the low income category defaulted at a high rate, but it is the middle class that has defaulted in larger numbers.

Chap explains the rest of the issue quite well. I just wanted to add this part.

It IS interesting that, during the last six months or so, retail gasoline prices have declined by roughly 50%.

However, I don’t believe that has been accompanied by (or caused by) a commensurate decline in demand during that same time (at least, not anywhere near the tune of 50%).

So, assuming that’s true, price fluctuations have to have something to do not merely with actual supply and demand, but with perceived/anticipated supply and demand.

Does that sound right? Comments?

Don’t forget the fixed costs like taxes. They don’t fluctuate.

Just a bunch of bull about speculators in other markets who magicially “know” when they have to get out — as if there are always willing (and apparently clueless) buyers ready to “get in.” None of those house flippers, for example, got burnt or foreclosed — nahhh. They all saw it coming and got out.

I guess you didn’t notice that worldwide demand for oil was NOT decreasing, but increasing during the oil price run-up. Then came the market crash, and then came the oil price declines as economies declined worldwide. Kinda skews your reasoning that oil speculators can levitate the price independent of demand.

Cheap money uniquely drives up gold prices, eh? Well, it also drives up housing prices. And last time I looked foreign money invested here had a large impact on low interest rates fuelling the housing bubble.

And no I don’t believe the price of oil is based on how much gas people pump into their tanks, and I never said I did.

Funny how you don’t mention OPEC or the pricing power of the Saudis, who can open/close their pipelines and influence prices far more than these speculators you so blithely speak off.

Bottom line: You haven’t given a single reason why oil is uniquely susceptible to “speculation” independent of market conditions. Not one.

If you were paying attention, oil was skyrocketing while demand was decreasing. The market will support that for a time. Know what killed the housing market in South Florida? “Speculators”, who came in and flipped properties making a buck and driving the prices up beyond what the market would sustain. When it was time to bail, the “speculators” did and left the market to adjust back down where it belongs (and it has). Did they do this because they had special powers? No, they did it to make a buck – lots of them.

“Speculators” have no special power – none. If the “speculators” see the potential to lose everything (in any commodity), watch how quickly they all bail and the prices freefall. Of course, watching it happen is not the same thing as believing it did not happen. Maybe you are hung up on the word “speculators”. How about “investors” instead?

Gold is not a fair comparison. Gold does well in a declining market. People will rush to gold when the dollar is weak. Since our gooberment is printing money like it grows on trees (which make the dollar weak), you have seen gold go up (unless you are not paying attention).

This is all basic stuff. Do you really believe the price of oil is based on how much gas people pump in their tanks?

Sorry so long.

However, I don’t believe that has been accompanied by (or caused by) a commensurate decline in demand during that same time (at least, not anywhere near the tune of 50%).

So, assuming that’s true, price fluctuations have to have something to do not merely with actual supply and demand, but with perceived/anticipated supply and demand.

Does that sound right? Comments?

HOW do they do that, soap box?

HOW did they do that when stock prices were declining all year, while oil prices went in the other direction during the first half of the year?

And please tell us the difference between futures trading on the commodities market for, say, gold, silver or pork bellies,and “speculating” in oil futures (which you seek to forbid).

CC, I think it’s high time that you purchased a separate home for me — you wouldn’t want to deny me my fundamental right of home ownership, ya’ know.

Why don’t you call PETA and get a lawyer? I’m a proud speciesist.

But plenty of people who belong to so-called, “minority groups” are keeping up with their mortgage obligations just fine.

Don’t forget the white people–with nice lifestyles and even college edjumacations–who tried to make some “easy” money flipping a house they never intended to live in. Ever. Calling it a “home ownership problem” is as inaccurate as calling it a “minority mortgage problem.”