Dems Kill Chances for Energy Independence?

"the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, allows oil futures to be traded electronically in unregulated markets outside of the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission."


More deregulation brought to you By Phil Gramm.

How many ways can this guy fuck this country?
 
Desh said:
"the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, allows oil futures to be traded electronically in unregulated markets outside of the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission."


More deregulation brought to you By Phil Gramm.

How many ways can this guy fuck this country?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was designed to give us access to foreign markets. But like many things political, they tried to establish a change without understanding the long term implications such legislation would have. The lack of knowledge on how the markets function is astounding. It seems like few in DC have any comprehension on how the markets work. Which is why I hope McCain picks someone like Romney for his VP.

In 2000, this policy had little negative effect given the tight trading range of oil prices. Just as the fair lending act of 1995 had little negative effect in that market environment. Both came back and bit us in the ass because the idiots in DC tend to lack any foresight.
 
Look at Phil Gramm's works.

He wrotes bills with massive help from the lobbiests. He gives the corps whatever they want. They then turn and screw us.

McCain has this guy as his top economics adviser. This is what you will get with a McCain presidency.


They want to hand the country to the people who gave us Enron , the saving and loan scandal, Keating 5, the subprime mess and 10 dollar gas in the near future.
 
Superfreak said:
It was time ten years ago. It most certainly should be a top issue as it involves not only national security but the strength of the dollar and the economy in general. Every percent of energy consumption that we get from foreign sources is US dollars and jobs going somewhere else. EACH percent makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Oil has replaced Gold as the as THE backbone of international currency. Thats why our dollar has fallen ... because of our huge dependence on foriegn oil. The threat of the Euro as becoming the standard barer of OPEC could send us into Economic Armageddon.. we could never payoff our National Debt. The only way we change this is by becomming less dependent.

If we open up all reserves... Northern Slope and Coastal.. pass a Comprehensive Alternative Energy Bill along with incentives to increase milage and use less energy... we will send a serious message to those speculators and Oil will drop dow to where it should be... 75 to 90 a barrel.
 
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000[/ame]

If we get rid of this law we want have to send them any fucking message at all.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it is not permanent. But EVERY source should be used. ANWAR is only about 10% of current estimates of untapped oil in the US. But it is a huge source of nat gas. As Damo mentioned, it has enough nat gas to last us for at least 50 years.

Add in the rest of domestic and offshore sources and you keep a good chunk of cash IN the US rather than sending it out. $2 trillion alone from ANWAR oil. That is not chump change.

But as you said, any use of domestic sources HAS to be coupled with expansion of alt energy supply as well.
Click to expand...

No, actually, I think start seeing how Americans handle a situation like this. $2.00 people bitched, $3.00 people started thinking of alternatives. $4.00 people started actually buying something more efficient. GM shut's down SUV plants and focus on their more fuel-efficent plants. We could drill in ANWAR, wait a couple years to reap the benefits, but by then, I think the American people would have reduced the need to drill there, and the Oil companies lose money. Hey, maybe thye should drill there so we can watch top cry in his beer!
 
klaatu said:
Oil has replaced Gold as the as THE backbone of international currency. Thats why our dollar has fallen ... because of our huge dependence on foriegn oil. The threat of the Euro as becoming the standard barer of OPEC could send us into Economic Armageddon.. we could never payoff our National Debt. The only way we change this is by becomming less dependent.

If we open up all reserves... Northern Slope and Coastal.. pass a Comprehensive Alternative Energy Bill along with incentives to increase milage and use less energy... we will send a serious message to those speculators and Oil will drop dow to where it should be... 75 to 90 a barrel.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
DigitalDave said:
No, actually, I think start seeing how Americans handle a situation like this. $2.00 people bitched, $3.00 people started thinking of alternatives. $4.00 people started actually buying something more efficient. GM shut's down SUV plants and focus on their more fuel-efficent plants. We could drill in ANWAR, wait a couple years to reap the benefits, but by then, I think the American people would have reduced the need to drill there, and the Oil companies lose money. Hey, maybe thye should drill there so we can watch top cry in his beer!
Click to expand...

Given that it will take 5-10 years to get ANWAR on line.... we should start now while the economic benefit is there. Meaning those evil oil companies have the cash reserves to go in and develop the field. If we don't need the oil in ten years, fine. But I highly doubt that will be the case.

Though I do agree that it is the high cost right now that is pushing more alt energy R&D. We should do both. Tap the coast and ANWAR AND invest heavily into alt energy resources.

75 million new people in the world each year. Demand for energy is going to continue to increase. We must increase each and every source we can to meet that rising demand. Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of the populations in China, India and Indonesia still use very little energy relative to the US. If half the worlds population sees even a slight increase in usage... we are screwed.
 
LadyT said:
I disagree. It may go down initially but you still have the same factors that are driving it up to the $40/barrel over what it should be.
Click to expand...

I agree that by itself it will not have a long term effect. It is the cummulative effort of drilling ANWAR, drilling off shore, reopening wells in the continental US and having a huge push for alt energy. THAT is what is going to drive the speculation towards a bearish move. You show a future increase in energy supply of that magnitude and you will most certainly turn the bulls to bears. (from current prices)

The main reason... such a future projection of US supply would vastly strengthen the dollar. Just a slight move upward in the dollar today and oil is down 2%.
 
http://energycommerce.house.gov/press/106ltr51.shtml

It sure seems that Dingle and the SEC were concerned about the law



Several commentators have questioned the rationale for continuing to ban futures on individual stocks, while others, most notably the SEC and the securities markets, express strong opposition to lifting the ban. I concur with the concerns expressed by opponents of this change and note the views expressed by the Commerce Committee on investor and market protections in this context in the Committee report accompanying the Futures Trading Act of 1982, Report No. 97-565 Part 2 (June 21, 1982) at 9-14, 17-20.

I am writing therefore respectfully to request that you review and report on the operation and effect of the Shad-Johnson Accord. Your report should answer the public policy questions identified in GAO’s May 1999 report, The Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Reauthorization GAO/GGD-99-74 at 31:
 
Desh said:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/press/106ltr51.shtml

It sure seems that Dingle and the SEC were concerned about the law



Several commentators have questioned the rationale for continuing to ban futures on individual stocks, while others, most notably the SEC and the securities markets, express strong opposition to lifting the ban. I concur with the concerns expressed by opponents of this change and note the views expressed by the Commerce Committee on investor and market protections in this context in the Committee report accompanying the Futures Trading Act of 1982, Report No. 97-565 Part 2 (June 21, 1982) at 9-14, 17-20.

I am writing therefore respectfully to request that you review and report on the operation and effect of the Shad-Johnson Accord. Your report should answer the public policy questions identified in GAO’s May 1999 report, The Commodity Exchange Act: Issues Related to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s Reauthorization GAO/GGD-99-74 at 31:
Click to expand...


Desh, FYI.... that says a ban on "individual stocks". That portion of his comments has nothing to do with commodity futures. He is referring to the ban on buying futures contract on say GE. Not on oil or grain etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top