Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:15AM

If you knew how to read price action,you'd spot that BX appears to be putting in a bottom.It will need more confirmation and upside volume, but your worries are probably all well discounted by now.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:22AM

@11:15 Timmy?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:29AM

@10:49 These are the ramblings of an oil man. Keep drilling, keep pumping, build more refineries and everything will be right with America. He could have added, start wars in the middle east to protect oil sources. We would be better off with a more european approach: tax the shit out of oil. Rather than dropping that puny fed tax, they should multiply it tenfold, which would drive down demand and prices.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:32AM

or simply change the law to say if you're gonna speculate in commodities, you have to have a real economic interest beyond playing...

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:43AM

did Bess take the day off?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 12:05PM

Actually European per capita GDP hasn't been that bad. In America, we goose growth by importing labor.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 12:09PM

@12:02 here. I might also add that European energy policy has resulted in an almost total avoidance of sprawling development. Relative to the US, those are ancient lands. Yet the countryside is pristine. Development is centered in cities, which are connected with efficient transit. Compare that with America. Which has been urban for only about 150 years and has evolved into an ugly sprawling mess.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 12:11PM

@stupid-- if you withdraw the roughly 75 billion in hedge funds that are in oil grain etc, its the same as massive selling. so, yeah, I strongly advocate big dollar people only trading highly liquid markets. Got it, stup?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 12:15PM

From Sal Manilla:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_countrywide;_ylt=Aru0YGg_Q4AAzfCQKV77hgMDW7oF

Those unfortunate Ollie girls. How much longer until they're both in pron?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:27PM

Dealbreaker, your technical set up seems to be acting up again. I had one comment ejected this morning because I had not logged in. (I never log in!)

The comment happened to be supportive of SEG and his wife's choices about childbirth and child-rearing. One critical commenter accused SEG of "putting his wife on display" because she used natural childbirth with a support group present; "exposing his child to tragedy," because SEG and his wife allowed their first child to be present at the second natural childbirth; "rushing his wife out of the hospital" after she gave birth because mother and baby left the hospital the next morning after a normal delivery; bragging about his income, which SEG confessed matched his wife's only after the second child arrived; and actually being a professor's assistant at a "third-tier" college (based on what?). On behalf of SEG, I'd like to say none of those critical comments made sense to me, that his choices seem quite rational, and above all, SEG and his "Trophy Wife" seem like the nuceus of a happy family.

It sounds a lot better than some of the complaining I hear about "gold-diggers" who are happy only when the booze and the spa services are flowing in Greenwich. It doesn't sound like those guys are really all that happy about their lot in life.

Anyway, re this topic, I agree with 12:05pm that we use imported labor to help keep the economy humming, but I also agree with ep that it's not only reliance on imported labor that makes America's economy different from the Europeans.

I don't agree with increasing fuel tax across the board because it's too hard on Americans of modest means who live in upper New England, the rural South, and the more expansive Western states without any public transportation.

@12:09pm's comment does interest me about how the Europeans have been able to avoid urban sprawl. High fuel costs (including taxes) may be one reason, but isn't part of it that their countries were platted and settled long before the automobile, and had reliable and extensive train systems functioning after the advent of the automobile? A lot of the settlement and development of the U.S. came along with the automobile, and we had only a few train systems operating, many of them tightly controlled by commercial interests shipping commodities and livestock.

I'd love to see the sprawl go away! I'm not sure high fuel tax would do it, though.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:31PM

@12:55 You miss the point, EP. Sure America is less dense. There are parts of America that are desolate, largely because of harsh terrain or climate. Look at the developed parts of America though vs Europe (which is essentially all developed). Development there is smart, here dumb. And largely because fuel is cheep and transportation spending favors roads over rails.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:39PM

@12:55 With regard to smart development, you need look only to the example of Stewart Airport in Newburgh. A potential fourth jetway for NY, but being developed without any though of how to get there. If this were any other country a high speed rail link, say one that stops in Rockland, goes across the Tappan Zee, stops in Westchester (to get the locals as well as CT passengers, all of whom are now very far from LAX, JFK, EWR), then zooms to Grand Central would be part of the plan. Why not here? Because the oil/auto lobby has a grip and discourages that sort of smart thinking.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:43PM

EP - what do you mean by having piles of cash lying around? When an LP commits to a PE fund, they dont actually write a check until they are asked for a capital call at the time of the funding of each transaction. Now these guys have access to tons of capital, but i cant imagine its diluting their returns given that they haven't called it yet...

@1:39 - LGA, not LAX, i'll pass on the easy joke

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:44PM

@1:34 and the money would come from???? Thats why the fuel tax. Tax fuel and use the proceeds to make the alternative (riding with the public) more palatible. Sort of what the Port Authority does. Bridge tolls heavily subsidize the PATH trains.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 1:57PM

@1:53 Would be great to move to rail from NJ, but that would require another tunnel under the hudson. Existing one is at capacity, new one is in the works, but plans have been scaled back and delayed.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 2:18PM

If gas was $10 a gallon it'd be great. Keep all the losers with their crappy cars off the road. Make the drive to the Hamptons easier too. win/win, tax it, raise the price, I dont care, just do it now!

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 2:24PM

Agree completely 2:18.

I just got a new suburban and someone was bitching to me about what horrible gas mileage it gets. Doesn't everyone know that they put huge gas tanks on them?

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 3:05PM

Poor people should take PUBLIC transportation. Having money lets you avoid the masses

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 3:22PM

@3:05 agree. Problem is that gas is not expensive enough to keep the poor out of cars. Also, theres not much public transportation for them to take. Remember a few weeks ago, the talk was about congestion pricing in NY. The people it would impact most are from Queens, who don't really have good alternatives. So luckily for them it was shot down.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 3:31PM

People who live in Queens and work in Manhattan are, by definition, poor. So, fuck 'em.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 6:56PM

Note: consumers who can afford a new car are already moving to fuel-efficient vehicles. Buying a new Suburban and zooming around in it in the neighborhood is just another way of obnoxious conspicuous consumption. Do you also wear thick gold chains to the supermarket? Have toilet seats embedded with bullion? I'm looking forward to getting to know you better!

Love some of your other reasoning, too, guys. Let the lower paid people in remote areas suffer, regardless of why they are there (farms, ranches, or forests) or what contribution they might be making to the country's welfare.

Disregard that the U.S. doesn't have a functioning train system! Turn the country into Balkanized regions! But keep the roads to the Hamptons clear for worthy traffic!

Obviously, we need an energy policy a little more nuanced than the thoughts that would occur to ersatz 21st Century Marie Antoinettes.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 7:14PM

Do you stereotype blacks like you stereotype people who drive suburbans?

I have 4 kids and that's what I need.

Please move to France and ride their train to you heart's content.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 7:15PM

PS 6:56,

I don't live in a neighborhood, I live on an estate.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 7:20PM

ha ha

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 8:11PM

America has sprawling development? 70% of the country is empty. look out the window as you fly from new york to aspen sometime.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 8:28PM

7:14pm. I don't think I stereotype blacks, but I'm not sure that my heart is without sin. I'll leave that up to God.

The way you agreed with @2:18pm that gas should be $10 a gallon, that "losers with crappy cars" should be kept off the highway, that the mileage of a new Surburban was irrelevant because it is equipped with huge tanks for gas you can afford at any price, suggested to me that you were a Suburban owner with a certain attitude. I'm not sure I stereotyped you as much as you inadvertently stereotyped yourself.

Even if you are esconced on an "estate," somebody has to go to the nearest grocery and liquor store, so presumably there is a "neighborhood" close by. Or perhaps you have become above eating and drinking.

A station wagon is a reasonable purchase for a family with four children. It's also not a necessity, and there are also plenty of fuel-efficient roomy alternatives to the Suburban. For my part, I was one of three children and my father -- who was generally in love with all forms of the automobile -- gleefully drove us around in an assortment of used European cars much smaller than standard compacts today. We loved it.

Frankly, I didn't like the way you felt that considerations of energy-efficiency were far beneath you. Fuel economy is something of a national issue, after all. You can always establish personal standards (other than the careless waste of money) and hope that others, not least of all your children, try to emulate you. That lovely "estate" of yours is not as self-contained as you might think, unless it is actually a survivalist camp and you need the Surburban for transportation of munition, in which case I'll be doubly sure to avoid you.

Although I did suggest that your thought processes ran along the lines of Marie Antoinette's (which doesn't necessarily connote admiration for the French), I don't think I indicated a desire to live anywhere else than the U.S. I just thought it would be nice to start work on alternative systems of transportation before we deliberately render unaffordable the only mass transit system we have that links the nation.

In the meantime, I'll be the one in the white Mazda.

Posted by guest , Apr 29, 2008 11:12PM

I've observed that the size car people drive is generally in inverse proportion to the size of their cock. GAnalYst

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 8:16AM

@8.28--transportation costs are embedded in all consumables, so, your argument is pure BS. Secondly, raising prices higher and higher weeds out the poorly educated, and under-employed and acts as a filter.

Your smug socialist view of everyone needing to pay for mass transit is BS as well, as if I dont use public transport or public schools, why should I pay for it? But, if you insist, I use expensive products, so why dont you pay for them? And I'll pay for the crap you buy. I bet I get the better deal.

Go back to Cuba you mindless Commie. Even Russia and China have given up the commie crap.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 9:34AM

Anal_yst @12:19 1) Nice 2) Better late than never. GAnalYst

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 9:40AM

@8:16 You're seriously mistaken if you think you pay anywhere near the full cost of driving around. The WSJ in fact, that liberal rag, had an article on their front page last summer saying that the military costs alone for protecting petroleum sources would justify taxes of around $2 per gallon.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 9:43AM

@7:14 I grew up in a family of six and we never had anything like a Suburban. You just fell into the trap of indulging your whiny kids with rides here and there. Let em walk or ride thier bikes. Their asses and yours too wouldnt be so fat.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 9:45AM

I'm a "mindless Commie" because I think we need to think through a national mass transit policy? That we can't just raise fuel prices and call it done?
All I've argued is that we not destroy the economic foundation of an existing system that provides food and other necessities to the country without giving some thought to what we're going to use instead, since we don't currently have adequate alternatives.

Granted, transportation costs are embedded in consumables, such as food. If the cost of transportation suddenly goes up, so does the cost of food. Are you suggesting we weed out the poorly educated and under-employed from consuming food?

You currently use public transport because you drive on paved surfaces built by the government called ROADS and over other things built by the government called BRIDGES and yes, you should be expected to contribute to their cost.

So far my views, which are only advocating consideration about how we might link the country in the future if we're going to cripple the current national transportation system (relying on motor vehicles), have earned suggestions from commenters that I go live in France and "back" to Cuba. I thank the commenters for the travel suggestions, but there are plenty of places I want to see that are higher on my personal list than Cuba, and I'd like to go to France when the dollar gains some traction again. Plus, as I was born and raised in the U.S.A., I think I'll continue living here. Thanks.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 10:07AM

@9.45 - Look mindless commie, the argument of "poor family farmers" is a myth propagated by mindless commies like you. Almost all farms are run by huge corps - Mom and Pop moved to the city to work at walmart.

I'm in favor of raising gas prices to at least $10 a gallon immediately. Most gas tax are diverted to porkbarrel projects, so you're wrong, yet again.

Yes and making poor, uneducated work hard is a good idea. Keeps them out of trouble and tired at night.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 12:40PM

The "mindless commie" is back. I never brought up the "poor family farmer." That's a straw man that belongs to you.

I'm simply saying that if transportation costs skyrocketed due to imposition of $10 a gallon fuel costs, food costs would go up because perishable goods are brought to market by trucks that run on fuel.

I have no idea what you mean by saying "most gas taxes are diverted to pork barrel projects." I never discussed the use of gas taxes, so I can't figure out what point your statement is offered to support or refute.

I never opposed people having to work for a living. I did point out that they need to be able to afford to eat.

In short, most of what you say relates to an argument that you think we're having, not to what I actually wrote.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 1:08PM

1. If fuel costs rise, the rollover per item incremental cost is small as the cost is distributed over big numbers. Poor people dont mind paying a bit extra.

2. Gas prices include a large tax to pay for your public's wasteful transit systems. So I am paying for me and for you.

3. Poor people eat a lot, they're mostly overweight. Maybe if prices went up, they'd slim down a bit.

4. I am making arguments and answering questions you are too shy to ask. So, yet again, I am helping the uninformed.

No need to thank me. I live to serve.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 3:17PM

At some point I have to believe you're enjoying writing a parody.

1. Poor people do mind paying a "bit extra" for food, particularly if they're going to pay a lot more (as you propose) for gasoline. Already, there is turmoil over the rising cost of food. More than doubling the cost of fuel would result in appreciably higher food costs. People don't cut food out of the budget, they eat less expensive food, like cutting down on meat and milk.

2. There is some percentage of the current gasoline tax that goes for mass transit, but a higher percentage goes for maintenance of the road system. People who live in NYC who don't own cars help pay for roads they never use. Basically, gasoline taxes pay for everyone's ground transportation systems. I'm not arguing that the U.S. shouldn't arrive at an allocation of gasoline taxes that is fairer or envisions a better long-term strategy.

3. See no. 1. Less money for food means lower quality food. However, I not planning to bring the debate on obesity into the argument.

4. I'm too shy to ask questions of you? No one has ever accused me of shyness in an argument before! I guess I never thought of you as being a source of valid information. Don't presume to raise a question hostilely, then answer it yourself triumphantly! That's talking to yourself, sort of the opposite of what one does on a blog.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 3:34PM

1. If the poor sold their cars, they dont need to buy gasoline, thus reducing demand and prices. Walking is good for poor people health.
2. Poor people eat too many chips, sode and cookies, that why they're fat. see above as a solution
3. Not true. Cars, trucks pay disproportional fees/taxes for public transit.
4. Actually, high quality food costs less than prepared store food. Poor people have time to prepare tasty meals, so its win/win. martha stewart will gladly give lessons on TV, which poor people adore watching
5. I dont raise questins with hostility, I'm simply helping you to be assertive and responding to how you want to act.

I serve the people and give to Junior League at various cocktail parties.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 4:01PM

@3:34 Do you work? Cant be a very demanding job.

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 4:11PM

@3:34 How do you arrive at #3? We're fighting a war so that gas is cheep. How much more could it be subsidized?

Posted by guest , Apr 30, 2008 4:20PM

@3:34pm. This is the point I have to believe you're enjoying writing a parody.
But you'll have to go it alone from here on out. Glad I could give you some amusement apart from the Suburban, the Junior League cocktail parties, the "estate" that has no neighborhood, and the four kids.

Posted by guest , May 02, 2008 6:13PM

For awhile I thought you had gotten your shit together. Now at the spot I have no idea what the hell the topic was about. Everybody is an editorialist....only they know what it's all about. No wonder Jossip is getting worse......Dealbreaker is, too.