On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message

The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but
because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand.


Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future.

Is that a threat?

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:25:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil
commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not
acting
on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other
words.

Of course. Joe, we won't agree on this, so let's not play 20
questions. I believe the price of oil is almost entirely related to
how much the buyer can be squeezed.
You think futures speculators have a large impact on the price.
We won't agree. Can you agree to that?
Let's just carry on with our boating discussion now.
When do you expect to go fishing?

--Vic


As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows.
Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:47:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message

The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but
because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand.


Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future.

Is that a threat?

--Vic


It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price increases
are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting
more attention.

Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There is
no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the oil
companies hedge, but not players at any level.

Here's how it works.
When you refuse to buy gasoline, refuse to fly, or cut back on use,
the price *may* come down. Including the futures prices.
Here's another option for you. Plant some oil acreage or find some
inexhaustible oil fields.
Until then, live with it. Jesus H. Christ, you act like the world
owes you low oil prices.
And I thought I was over the top complaining about Cheerios.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

When do you expect to go fishing?

As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows.
Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free.

Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the
depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn.
Talking crappies and bluegills.
The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer,
so spawn time was the salad days for fishing.
How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn?

--Vic


http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7917.html

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates
and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it
would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not
sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it
sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments
by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means
and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)

Only when you won't accept responsibility for your action or inaction.
That's what I meant when I said it doesn't hurt me.
I really don't care what happens with the bad loan situation, since I
wasn't responsible for it.
Not that it's rocket science. I saw it coming, as did anyone with
their eyes open and not heavily sedated.
If I were responsible I would have regulated loans to prevent it.
But nobody asked me.
Would not have looked good for "record home ownership" statistics
that GWB often crowed about. Just wouldn't be prudent.
And I don't care about the taxes or depreciated dollar.
I just don't. Nobody asked me to be the boss of that, and
I admit I didn't volunteer. I just left it the business community.
with proper gov oversight.
And here we are.
Okay with me.
Why get upset about it?

--Vic (feeling laid back, and a bit high on Stabil)

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked
around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate
some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their
mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates
and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it
would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am
not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but
it sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage
payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or
consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means
and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little
to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way
to the lawmakers and their friends.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:25:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil
commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not acting
on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other
words.

Of course. Joe, we won't agree on this, so let's not play 20
questions. I believe the price of oil is almost entirely related to
how much the buyer can be squeezed.
You think futures speculators have a large impact on the price.
We won't agree. Can you agree to that?
Let's just carry on with our boating discussion now.
When do you expect to go fishing?

--Vic

wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans?
Doesn't hurt me.

That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to
save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or
later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar.

Sounds like you want it regulated.

Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail,
except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement
$$$s.

Life is complicated. :-)




I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being
kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to
re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having
trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan,
not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the
prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house
"value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand
this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare.

Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage
payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or
consideration.

Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their
means and borrow what they can afford finish last.
Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with
mortgages they couldn't afford, win.


Eisboch

That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a
little to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds
it's way to the lawmakers and their friends.


Ahh. I knew there was an explanation for the big brokerage house bailout.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

When do you expect to go fishing?

As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows.
Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free.

Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the
depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn.
Talking crappies and bluegills.
The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer,
so spawn time was the salad days for fishing.
How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn?

--Vic