I don't usually do a lot of this, but several things that I've been meaning to link to:
The Associated Press reports on an obscure law in Ohio that allows voters to register and vote on the same day, and creates a week-long early voting window that Obama is poised to take advantage of.
Speaking of which, Justin Sizemore cites numbers from the Democratic primaries in North Carolina and finds that newly-registered voters turn out in considerably higher numbers than voters who were registered prior to 2008.
...and Chris Hayes references me in an article on Obama's voter registration efforts at The Nation.
Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are figuring out what we reported a week ago: the Gang of 10 puts McCain in a very difficult position.
Wesley Clark Jr. implies that his dad had not been vetted (h/t Giordano).
PUMAs hang out with 9/11 thurthers in front of a Burger King.
Phil Vogels at the Huffington Post finds little historical relationship between experience and the quality of a Presidency.
Me on student radio in Denver.
It's probably not the war in Georgia that is driving McCain's numbers.
And I maintain that Evan Bayh is getting a raw deal from parts of the left, but here's a reason to oppose him.
8.15.2008
Friday Afternoon Leftovers
@ 7:39 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
129 comments
Expect to see more on the Ohio early voting story and other states' early voting windows here soon...
What's the story with the Obama-Veneman jet? That's a terrible idea for a ticket if I've ever seen one; I mean, McCain and Lieberman could beat that.
Nate, WTF is with that plane picture?! Where did it come from?
I saw the story about Ohio just the other day. This is going to be hugh for the Democrats.
How many offices does Obama have open vs. McCann is Ohio?
Those Pumas need to do something about red eye. It could really derail their beautiful movement.
Re: GOP Veep candidate Pawlenty...
I have been mentioning on previous threads that TPaw would not assist McCain in MN or the upper midwest [IMO].
Now I just ran across the following post @ USA Election Polls website:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/
To quote verbatim in the next 3 paragraphs:
- "Minnesota does not appear to be a state that is in play, although the monthly averages show a tightening race in the state, Obama has been comfortably ahead for a while.
The interesting poll from the MN Rasmussen Reports poll was that Tim Pawlenty would likely hurt McCain's chances in Minnesota if he were selected as the VP. I was surprised to see that:
"Nearly a third of unaffiliated voters (32%), however, say putting Pawlenty on the GOP ticket makes them less likely to vote for it, while 22% say it makes them more likely to vote for McCain."..." -
----------------------------------
I am a born & raised MN DFLer [transplanted to FL via SoCal] and all I can say is, boy I sure hope McCain wastes his Veep card on TPaw. Not a hater, Tim is just a big ol' goofball & this is the moniker that even the MSM affectionately calls him in the Land o' Lakes. Good n' Plenty is basically harmless, unlike Norm Coleman...
PS - I trust PETE & his buds will not pass this stategic info along to GOP HQ when they go in tonight for more talking points to spam all over this site...
"PS - I trust PETE & his buds will not pass this stategic info along to GOP HQ when they go in tonight for more talking points to spam all over this site..."
Won't matter if they do - remember "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike In U.S."?
I saw the story about Ohio just the other day. This is going to be hugh for the Democrats.
How many offices does Obama have open vs. McCann is Ohio?
From a post a week ago: Obama has 33 offices in Ohio, McCain 9.
Nate´s proyection in Ohio is Obama 51, McCain 49. The Nate´s Electoral Vote proyecion is Obama 287, McCain 250.
One poll that McCain lead in Ohio, the Electoral Vote proyection here is McCain 270, Obama 267.
are you messing up with my head? what's the story behind the plane pic? is it real? made up? I'd think that if obama wanted a woman, and a real executive, he'd go with kathleen sebelius. even if i see the words obama/veneman out of obama's own mouth, i prolly won't believe him until i see her in the vp debate.
but then again, if that's the choice he's making, im ready to be convinced, and would give a few bucks to read inside his brain.
Pretty snarky piece by Cynthia Tucker about the Gang of 10 stuff. Shows a fundamental lack of understanding of why energy is a good issue for McCain, a la Nate's article yesterday.
For all the talk about how more supply wouldn't move prices, even the tepid Gang of 10 chatter has abetted the $30/barrel drop in crude price over the past few weeks.
Does that flight offer free trips to Beijing ???
Dario,
your math is off, but actually that is not how Nate's math works on this site.
His estimates are projections that factor in probability as derived from that simulations of outcomes run on his computer.
Right now, since Nate's projection is a close 51-49 Obama probability of victory in OH, the EV tracker is most likely assigning approximately 10 votes to each of McCain & Obama.
Sorry, this is a simplistic attempt to explain how statistical analysis is performed. But in a toss-up, the computer will not assign ALL of any states votes to one candidate unless you see that the state has a 100% projection for victory [Utah for REP, VT for DEM]. Few are that sure, although many are in high victory % like CA @ 98%.
Then you have rounding, etc as the EV's are assigned by computer - not by Nate. So if McCain pulls more than 10% ahead in OH [like Rasmussen claims in the last poll] & the computer projections that McCain has a 100% certain victory in OH THEN he would get all 20 EV.
Right now, this analysis is most likely awarding 10 to each candidate for projection purposes +/- [IMO]
That Plane Picture has to be photo shopped. You mean to tell me that the Obama camp left their plane out in plain(no pun intended) public view before the VP was announced? I don't buy it.
I would be jumping up and down if it did have Obama - Schweitzer.
On the subject of afterthoughts that may be of some importance. My job is making difficult diagnoses in an Emergency Room and making difficult real estate deals on days off. I've learned to look carefully at everything that I'm told or read and not to allow myself to rely on anyone else's evaluation.
Do we know if John McCain ever was in a position to develop strategy or to design a large scale operation that involved some complicated calculations? Or was he a fighter pilot who was told where he was to bomb and at what time. Has anyone ever done the research to develop what, if any, real "Commander In Chief" experience at war he has really had? Wes Clark called him on it but I'm not aware of any real investigative reporting to determine what, if anything, is really behind the persona that is winning him the "he's best able to fight a war and protect us" masses.
If it hasn't been done, it should be. This election is too important for us and, by virtue of that, the whole world.
Thanks,
Gregg
Bayh voted for war. There's no other reason necessary to tell him to sit down with Biden and Clinton applaud politely when his name is not announced as VP candidate.
On Ohio: Wow. Talk about a break for Obama! It'll be fascinating to see the turnout and exit polls on that...I imagine we'll get some good estimations by those, but no hard numbers.
If Obama does well enough...It could even drive expectations and discourage McCain voters in Ohio. If Obama wins Ohio, the rest should be a cakewalk. This is better news for him than Bob Barr!
On Georgia: I do think it is a factor for McCain's bump...Even if people aren't playing close attention, knowing that Russia is aggressive probably helps McCain. Especially if people aren't paying attention to the finer points. The article states that the level of interest is fairly comparable to other non-US wars, which have surely had an impact with voters (election year or not).
Besides, what else could be causing the bump? It's far more likely than Obama's week-long vacation.
PUMAs: Who would have guessed that people who chose the acronym "[Party] Unity My Ass" would have such a hard time uniting people? :-P
-Rhode Island X
Lol so your just going to leave us with the plane picture? Thats it? Not a word about it!?!
I can't imagine thats real... thats how Kerry's pick got out early, I doubt they'd do that again.
Lol so your just going to leave us with the plane picture? Thats it? Not a word about it!?!
I can't imagine thats real... thats how Kerry's pick got out early, I doubt they'd do that again.
Rudy said "For all the talk about how more supply wouldn't move prices, even the tepid Gang of 10 chatter has abetted the $30/barrel drop in crude price over the past few weeks."
Rudy, your statement is just a steaming pile of manure. Prices have dropped, but it has nothing to do with statements like those made by the Gang of 10, OPEC or McCain.
On July 15, 1 Euro = $1.59. Today, 1 Euro = $1.47. The dollar has increased by 8% relative to the Euro in the last month; this has a large impact on oil prices, since prices are denominated in US dollars. Similarly, the US dollar has strengthened by over 5% against the Yen in the same period. The US dollar appears to have bottomed, at least in the short term, which has caused most of the reduction in the price over the last 30 days.
Further, the recent decrease in the price of oil is consistent with the pattern that markets have long demonstrated. Rapid changes in prices of commodities usually result in a reinforcing trend, which causes the price to rise too far. The trend moderates, the price reduces somewhat, and a new, stable, higher price benchmark is established for that commodity.
Together, these two factors account for the recent decline in price.
Your statement is an uninformed talking point.
Ruby saud...
For all the talk about how more supply wouldn't move prices, even the tepid Gang of 10 chatter has abetted the $30/barrel drop in crude price over the past few weeks.
The price in oil dropped because the oil consumption news came out showing Americans using 800,000 barrels less a day than they did 6 months ago. It had nothing to do with "Psychology" as some prognosticators would have you believe. Just because some pundit on TV says something does not mean its true. Discerning between political talking points and fact is what this site is all about.
Plane pic sure looks Photoshopped to me. And I haven't seen any buzz about it; if it were genuine, the MSM would be exploding about now.
not likely at all the be Veneman, just floating the wild card prospects like Hagel [not gonna happen].
Nate, can you run the numbers on length of candidate's names who are seccessful & unsuccessful running for POTUS & VP ticket combo ?
Seems to me that long names on tickets in modern history [since Eisenhower ?], the winners seem to have short 4-7 alpha names. Sometimes the losers do to [Dole/Kemp], but man who was the last POTUS or VEEP with a surname longer than 7 letters.
We got our Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, Reagan/Bush, Carter/Mondale, Bush/Dole, Nixon/Agnew, Johnson/Humphrey [oops 8 but strange circumstances may account], Kennedy/Johnson...
Put a Rockefeller, Lieberman, Eagleton [ok], or other long names on your ticket - Stevenson in either position & it seems like you lose...
Pawlenty - lose. looks better for Romney [alpha wise]. Not good for Sebelius or Schweitzer either. Obama & McCain names fit the scenario.
Maybe a leftover relic from the bumpersticker days of how a name fits & looks... or maybe a numerology thing ? Bet Nancy Reagan could tell us !
or maybe more 'leftover' noise....
"but here's a reason to oppose him."
Nate, Link is broken on (here's) reason to oppose [Bayh].
Dudes, I said abetted, not caused. No need to produce spittle. The dollar move accounts for about half the move in oil, and the prospect of reduced demand AND increased supply account for the rest of the move.
The news about reduced domestic demand has been out for more than two weeks. Oil has had only a handful of up days since then, and a few days when you'd logically have thought oil would trade higher because of the Russian bellicosity.
If you have an algorithm to break it down more finely than that, I'm all ears.
Here's a suggestion: John McCain is benefiting from the surge of patriotism caused by the Olympics. The Games of course increase a sense of nationalism, which I think would benefit McCain.
checked out the pic in photoshop. very clearly faked. pixelation at the left of the two names gave it away. terrible job.
DCM,
As to what is happening with Ohio in the simulations, if you look at today's EV Distribution chart, you will see two honking big spikes, the first just where the chart turns blue (273 EVs) and slightly further to the right (293 EVs).
This shows that the two most likely Obama victory scenarios are (1) Obama winning Kerry states + CO, NM and IA, and (2) same + OH. Both scenarios, not coincidentally, are all states where Obama has a win percentage >50%.
That ticket will never get off the ground...
For all the talk about how more supply wouldn't move prices, even the tepid Gang of 10 chatter has abetted the $30/barrel drop in crude price over the past few weeks.
There is not a single economist alive that would say that is true.
You really have to study what actually moves oil prices.
Some things are just coincidence.
" Spencer said...
Here's a suggestion: John McCain is benefiting from the surge of patriotism caused by the Olympics. The Games of course increase a sense of nationalism, which I think would benefit McCain."
bull. increase in patriotism benefits mccain? right. last time you looked at michael phelps broke all records whenever he swims, and you're like bam, i love mccain. silly.
i would argue that the attention on athleticism, and vigor would benefit mccain.
that's a dumb thing to say, but it's right on par with whatever you said.
counsellorben
your point is correct, but that is looking at the projected EV distribution chart on the right showing how the simulations run peaked & cratered.
DARIO was talking about the chart on the top left projecting Obama with 288 EV.
Those are 2 different results.
The fact of the matter is that AFTER running the simulations that produce the results depicted on the right EV chart, you can graphically see how the results MIGHT turn out in the actual election with all EV's assigned.
The computer must be assigning EV's using the projected odds of winning each state and rounding them off proportionately on the left side.
That smooths out the peaks & valleys for an average PROJECTION.
clearly there is no way on earth that Obama can win 287.7 EV.
The EV's are assigned by the projected weight of the confidence for each state final results based on current data & trends, etc.
Nate is not assigning EV like on many other sites [most other sites] that give all or nothing or tossup - note: no tossups above on the left.
I would have assumed you knew more about how this site worked.
Nate provides us with multiple analytical tools and allows us to see the metrics for ourselves.
But until Nate tells me otherwise, the very simplistic explanation I provided is how my own graduate school training toaught me how to perform predictive analysis.
Veneman? That really would be out of left field. I sure wish there was more polling coming out of Indiana. Personally, I do think Obama's VP pick is down to Biden and Bayh. Delaware doesn't factor into electoral projections, but Indiana could have major relevance. If he picks Bayh, it'd be nice to have some timely before-and-after polling, and right now the latest poll out of Indiana on here and pollster.com is from mid-late June. Two month old polling will tell you nothing about Bayh's impact if he is the VP.
I know. I know. Its frustrating because I really don't want to get into an echo chamber where its just liberals building up Obama.
Sometimes, we're guilty of posting only supportive polls and ignoring other ones.
I really do want to remain objective as possible. I am really open to hearing objective contrary evidence from Republicans.
The troll stuff is just annoying. We're all political junkies on this site. You're not going to change anyone's vote by posting here so just save the talking points.
Why do they bother with it?
Just to annoy us?
Kind of a pathetic way to use their time.
I think he´ll pick Warner. Indiana is too red for Obama. If he pick Warner, he´ll win in Virginia and the Electoral Map change with Obama.
My mistake, the dollar move only accounts for about 35-40% of the downward move in oil.
CEJ, your response makes the same mistake the other dudes made in misreading terminology. Put a dictionary on your Christmas list.
Any economist (except ones who would say that drilling in ANWR would only make a two cent difference in gas prices) would acknowledge that the prospect of breaking the logjam on offshore drilling would have a forward-looking effect on prices.
I don't think I'm the one in here who needs a lesson in how markets work.
Speaking of "how markets work"... what do y'all think happens to the DOW and the S&P in the week following an Obama victory?
filistro said...
Speaking of "how markets work"... what do y'all think happens to the DOW and the S&P in the week following an Obama victory?
I don't know, if it produces half as good as the clinton years, we'll be alright.
I just realized that my last comment was posted on the wrong board. I reposted it on the other one. It was in reference to that thread.
Speaking of "how markets work"... what do y'all think happens to the DOW and the S&P in the week following an Obama victory?
I don't know, if it produces half as good as the clinton years, we'll be alright.
I'm going to try to be fair and not let misinformation go on our side while criticizing on it the other side.
The truth is that presidents have very little control over markets and how the macro economy does over a presidency is largely a coincidence.
To a certain extent, Clinton did get lucky that his presidency coincided with the dotcom boom.
I will say that our whole economy and long run future benefited from running a balanced budget. That isn't typically what people are talking about when they say "the economy"
The plane is really clearly photoshopped. Look at the left hand part you can see an extra white area in the shape of a circular brush. It looks like a good picture to manipulate, and could lead to some great humor.
The Obama campaign believes this period before the conventions as silly season. Their entire campaign has been on semi-vacation since June, now Obama goes to Hawaii during a important foreign policy event.
We all get hopped up on polling from day to day but this is all nonsense right now. We talk about the swift-boating of Kerry but it had 0 impact on the election. The election closeed in the final month, and kerry had a shot but Bush was a little stronger with a little better operation.
The Obama campaign believes these things are settled in the stretch run, like Iowa where he closed super fast when it counted. If you peak too soon, you run out of gas. They're in neutral right now, waiting for the sprint which starts with the VP next week. Theres as much as 20% of the electorate undecided, thats a lot. All the goings on pre-convention won't matter a row of beans on election day. This is a two month election, starting next week. Pre-season is about to end.
I'm not asking how the economy would perform long-term under Obama. (People are often suprised to learn that historically the stock market tends to be stronger under Democratic administrations.)
I'm more interested in how you think markets would react short-term to an Obama win.
In regards to Ohio.
Well remember all those states, that Obama did well in Like Indiana, North Carolina, etc., thad had same day registering. Well, those states will now be open to Obama (especially those with Democratic Governor's and Secretary's of states, as Nate noted Yesterday).
Well! Now it's "Payback" time by the democrats, and their get out the vote effort, is going to really thwart the repubs this time.
Rudy said "CEJ, your response makes the same mistake the other dudes made in misreading terminology. Put a dictionary on your Christmas list."
Rudy, I was going to apologize for the flying spittle, but you don't deserve it.
I saw from the start that you said "abetted," and as a lawyer, I have an appreciation for that word. However, to say that weak statements about a likely small increase in future supply (which cannot possibly offset demand side increases in China and India in the interim) have had even a small effect is to assert something which is not supported by what has happened in the markets.
It is merely parroting misinformation, and deserves to be treated as such.
"I'm more interested in how you think markets would react short-term to an Obama win."
So much of the short-term movement will depend upon how the election comes out versus CW, not just president, but also congress composition and the implications for being able to implement policy changes.
Also, if Obama were to have a commanding lead in the polls come election day, his presence would already be anticipated by the market.
If it's looking 50/50-ish on election day, the election just getting over eliminates an uncertainty, which typically would tend to send it north short-term regardless.
I don't think anybody can adequately forecast how the market would do longer term; there are just too many variables, mostly having to do with economic cyclicality, interest rate trends, and world perspective.
who's name is that supose to be on the plane? i dont recognize it.
CBen, misinformation = lies intended to deceive. What we have is a difference of opinion. I'm not parroting anything; I'm laying out logic for what I believe to be so, and with good foundation.
I'll explain somewhat more rudimentally so you can understand, hopefully not condescendingly. I recognize this isn't your field of expertise. Unfortunately, most politicians (of either party) don't have a good grasp of market drivers either, which is why partisanship takes over.
What else is happening to drive oil prices? A lot. And nobody can isolate the exact impact of each -- it's all a mosaic.
For example, all of the hand-wringing in almost all quarters in recent months about the weak dollar ignored some of the positives of it and the self-correcting nature of it. Now, some of those positives are manifesting in improved exports, increased capital flow into the US, and a flight back to the dollar because of the Russia events.
There are so many crosscurrents that linear analysis is impossible, and often dangerous.
It is correct to say that no single factor in isolation drives the market, and you guys infered that I was crediting the Gang of 10 stuff when I was only pointing it out as a contributing factor.
Indeed, drilling off our coast won't make up for the demand of China and India, but that's beside the point. The oil market is looking at all of the information affecting supply and demand, basing price off that aggregate. It's the MARGINAL CHANGE in expectations that shifts the pricing equation. Incremental supply more than was previously factored into the equation makes a difference, even if it enters the market at a later date. It signals the market that there will be loosening of supply eventually, and may also induce producers (or speculators) to sell more now and beat the rush.
Too, this week news hit the market that world economies are weakening more than they had previously, perhaps affected by energy costs as in the US. That puts the wheels in motion again to recalibrate the supply/demand equations and thus price.
Seriously, if this macro recalibration weren't going on this week, the Russia stuff undoubtedly would have spiked oil prices for fear of supply disruption. But with demand dropping more than expected by the market, the prospect of supply disruption is greeted neutrally.
One other point: too many people take it as a given that China and India will keep growing rapidly ad infinitum. That is extremely CW. So, it's reasonable (and prudent) to expect that CW to fade in the intermediate term. In fact, some of that is being priced into the markets now.
It's entirely plausible to think China could have a post-Olympics recession, and that they, too, are having some pause about paying big prices for oil. They don't have a blank checkbook, and all the infrastructure build they're doing also carires with it incremental infrastructure costs that carry into eternity.
Just remember that there are an almost infinite number of checks and balances in economics, ergo, the famous "invisible hand" of the marketplace. Such is the beauty of free-market economics.
Josh: the name is Veneman. Ann Veneman. Republican secretary of agriculture under Bush Jr, current director of UNICEF, and someone whose name has been occasionally and rarely thrown out as a potential VP pick.
The reasons it's unlikely: She's clashed with the Dem leadership quite a bit. She was very light on regulation for food/agriculture and is against farm subsidies.
Benefits: She's not a hard-liner, it would be a symbol of unity between the parties, she's a woman, and how many bad things can you say about a woman who runs UNICEF?
Summation: Not likely, but a fun idea.
yep that photo is definitely worked up a bit in photoshop. If you zoom in on the plane it is pretty clear. Just look at the exit door on the side of it, the "veneman" goes right over it and erases the top of the door.
Rudy,
You have a better understanding of economics than I thought. You are right. There are quite a few factors going on in the global oil markets. You mention a lot of them. You initially implied a much more direct relationship between the prospect of future supply and the current decrease. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that, but we have heard people say that and it is a false GOP talking point. I'm glad you realize that a lot more is going on and that the prospect of a very small increase in global supply 10 years from now has a very small impact on current prices.
You raise some other interesting points. I've often wondered about how long India and China can maintain their current growth rates. I have some opinions on the subject, but don't feel like going into them right now. Maybe another time. Short version: I agree. The cw that they'll grow at 7-8% indefinitely is blatantly wrong.
I hadn't heard the Veneman rumor. I sort of like the idea of a moderate Republican, but they really have to be pretty far to the left on a lot of issues. There aren't many Republicans like that (definitely not Hagel).
Has anybody thought about Lincoln Chaffee or one of the two Maine senators?
That might be interesting.
Rudy,
I understand the issues you discuss, having a Bachelors in Economics from a well-known institution. So your exegesis was impressive, but that does not change my basic disagreement with you.
You are asserting that ten US Senators managed to (even in some small manner) jawbone world economic markets. It is just not a reasonable assumption, since the only individual who ever successfully jawboned a market was Alan Greenspan, and then it was only US equity markets, not world commodity markets.
Others without your background have made the assertion that (1) Bush's lifting the executive order banning offshore drilling caused oil prices to decline, or (2) these ten Senators have caused oil prices to decline.
There can be many market drivers, but when you have overwhelming forces, such as the change in the strength of the dollar, a market re-setting to a new equilibrium, and a drop in US demand, these factors swamp anything that any small group of individuals can achieve (other than, say, the Saudi royal family, who could cut supply and create havoc).
It is a false meme to portray the efforts of the Gang of Ten as having a measurable impact on a world commodity market.
MATT J. H.:
The Obama campaign isn't on vacation or "in neutral," they're focused on building the campaign structure that will be needed to actually win this thing on the ground, and working really hard at it. In terms of your analogy, they're in training camp, getting everyone in shape, deciding who is best for each position in different games (states), sizing up opponents, etc.
I have little idea what the McCain campaign is actually doing other than highly visible playing to his "base" in the media. But since we tend to focus here on high-level "national" events and top campaign figures (in addition to polling), assuming that's all they're doing would be as inaccurate as the perception that the Obama campaign is sitting back and doing nothing. Still, based on the numbers of offices, staff and volunteers that have been reported, I think it's a safe bet that they're not spending as much time organizing their ground operation.
Someone with good photoshop skills should put together some really good photoshopped Obama and McCain campaign planes for with various potential running mates, and scatter them around on the Web. Judging from the reactions here, the fallout could be a lot of fun.
Why just put that photoshopped picture there and not say anything about it?
filistro,
If the Obama win is predicted in advance of Nov 4th very little will happen the week after he wins.
Short run I can't predict whether the market moves up or down on aggregate. The tendency is for the markets to tick upwards because some uncertainty in the markets is alleviated. At the industry level you can more easily predict who benefits from a McCain win and who benefits from an Obama win.
CEJ, thank you. I strive for civil discourse, but I will poke back when poked.
CBen, I'm glad you have an economics degree, although Lord knows it might be a disadvantage depending upon the ideology professed by the teaching staff. I gave up on the possibility of an economics degree after going toe-to-toe unarmed with an avowed Marxist prof in econ 101. I knew intuitively why he was wrong; I just couldn't argue it to his satisfaction, and he had the last word. Only "D" I ever got.
I think the scenario is a little different than as you paint it. I do not look look at the Gang of 10 jawboning as the end result, and neither does the market. In fact, I painted it as "tepid chatter" in the original post.
In fact, I believe their plan has little chance of passage, and that they Republican leadership have already drawn and quartered them upon demand of the other members. They potential neutered the biggest campaign issue the Republicans had thrown into their laps because of the incalcitrance of Obama and Pelosi on the issue of supply.
The fact that the pro-drilling position resounded so overwhelmingly with voters made it a winning issue, as Nate discussed in his article yesterday.
Even so, I don't think the possibility got factored much into the market immediately, at least beyond the move caused by Bush lifting the moratorium and the impending expiration of the congressional moratorium.
It seemed likely that battle lines would be drawn and it would be little more than a political issue until the new session of congress kicked in and killed such talk.
But once the Gang of 10 compromise emerged, the likelihood of SOMETHING passing relatively soon suddenly became more real as people began to see that the Dems must adjust position in order not to be completely routed on the issue.
In the thread about Nate's article, I noted that the the entire Dem energy platform is either obstructionist or redistributionist, and they're effectively saying to voters, "drink your castor oil and like it."
The tire inflation stumble further solidified the logic that the Dems had a big losing position on their hands, and the camel's nose would at least get under the tent, opening the door to expansion of offshore drilling in later years. And here we are.
The market now rationally believes that there will be offshore drilling by popular demand, and the numbers could be far bigger long-term than commonly portrayed.
In turn, that means that OPEC loses some power to also artificially control supply, and may decide to turn up the spigot in order to blunt the momentum, or maybe to take near-term advantage of the price bubble.
Time will tell.
clarkejeffrey @ 10:31 PM
Lincoln Chaffee might be an out-of-the-box rabbit for Obama to pull for the cross-aisle crowd.
He was certainly a moderate Rep senator in the grand old tradition of NE politics who was also well-respected. Kinda in the Snowe/Collins crowd that is a very small club now...
Plus if I recall Chaffee just came out publicly to endose Obama this week along with the 2 mayors in AK. Not sure if the timing is meaningful or not.
I think I could support Chaffee [and his name fits nicely on a bumper sticker [7 letter] so he qualifies numerologically at least... On most issues, he is very progressive, even liberal socially. Better yet, Chaffee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against authorization of the use of force in Iraq !
That qualifies him for serious consideration. But can he effectively debate & be a designated attack dog ? hhhmmm...
Although he now calls himself an IND, this would be a smackdown to McCain & an open dare to name Lieberman for VP. I can only dream that John & Joe are dumb enough to take that bait - together they would go down in flames.
On this I welcome comment from the GOP partisans. Would your base support Lieberman with McCain just because Joe is also a warmonger even if he is socially progressive ?
As things are shaping up now, the DEMS will probably officially boot Lieberman out of their senate caucus by the time the next Congress convenes [unless he represents the elusive 60th vote which is unlikely this year]. Good riddance to the hypocrite too. [IMO]
On the Georgia thing, the bar set by the question in that poll - following the thing "very closely" - is pretty high. I don't think that the response to that shows that it wasn't the crisis that pushed McCain's numbers back to even.
Also, if we think it _was_ Georgia that's moving the numbers, this is very bad news for Obama; If a teensy little crisis like this is enough to bring the candidates neck-and-neck, think what a bigger, scarier crisis could do...
And there are plenty of people with the power and incentive to create a big, scary crisis if it will help the Republicans win. The administration does, obviously. And bearing in mind how well Bush's foreign policy has been working for Iran, they have reason to want McCain to give them more of the same. Then there's Osama Bin Laden...
PS. Just for Marcus:
http://www.textonimage.com/1000177125.jpg
Several people have posted stats on voter registration in various states.
Where did you find the stats?
I've been looking for a centralized table that says the number of Dems, Reps, Indys, etc in each state. I haven't found one. Its surprising and annoying because its the kind of thing I thought would be published in multiple places.
Oh and if anybody knows where I can find the raw data for polls from previous elections....
I'm willing to pay as long as its a reasonable price.
"The market now rationally believes that there will be offshore drilling by popular demand"
You speak for "the market"? Right. The fantasy of instantaneous offshore drilling has exposed the GOP for the economic nabobs they really are. Last I checked, when speaking in economic terms of supply and demand, one was referring to ACTUAL supply and ACTUAL demand. But the new 2008 McCain economics is only about possible or future or "imaginary" demand.
The gang of 10 is comprised of senators who are trying to find a solution, but McCain and neocon right-wingers are only interested in beating drums, not finding solutions for Americans.
But please, keep beating the drum. Davis Davis (R-TN) lost his seat in GOP primary as the GOP opponent painted Davis as the tool of Big Oil. This theme resonated with TN Republican voters, and they cast Davis out.
Obama has expressed interest in the ideas suggested by the Gang of 10, but McCain has to opposed it as he has no ideas, no solutions for voters other than then mindless mantra of "drill now".
Still further, McCain had to flip flop on tire inflation as the guys as some entity called NASCAR said that tire inflation saves gas. Again this just goes to show how the GOP is "all hat and no cattle" on the issue of energy.
Watch McCain flip flop to support the Gang of 10 or watch more GOP representatives lose their House seats.
clarkejeffrey @ 11:57 PM said...
"Oh and if anybody knows where I can find the raw data for polls from previous elections....
I'm willing to pay as long as its a reasonable price."
Jeff, try Craiglist. EVERYTHING is listed on there as For Sale or Available. Just ask Larry Craig...
You are a junkie if you need a fix of that much raw...data.
;-)
I just went over to Intrade and Kerry is at 14% for the VP pick, due to movement over the past few days. WTF? Googling, there is some chatter.
The idea might be that Kerry is the "anti-Bush" due to running against him, thereby turning the ticket into a Generic Democrat pair. At the same time, his establishment creds, war history, and name recognition balance the ticket.
But I don't need to tell you that with Kerry comes all the mud that stuck to him in 2004, the loser label, and his pro-war votes.
So is this just Intrade's usual difficulty with low probabilities?
If Obama picks Kerry, he deserves to lose.
As for picking Bayh, it would be a terrible idea IF he had to get Mark Penn as added baggage. In addition to race-baiting the election, Penn was the idiot who almost single-handedly sank Hillary Clinton's nomination.
Every time her staffers tried to get her to do something sensible, like allow voters to see she was actually a human woman with real feelings instead of a steel talking-points robot, Mark Penn would step in and over-rule them with "the numbers."
Hillary was convinced he was a "genius." There are, for some insane reason, lots of people with severe "beltway-disease," one symptom of which seems to be thinking people like Mark Penn are "geniuses."
Penn will emerge after this election and re-brand himself as a Republican. Then, like Dick Morris before him, he'll be advising candidates how to attack Democrats like Hillary.
For, some reason this thread has dissolved into an energy debate. Here's one point from Princeton Economics and Finance Professor Harrison Hong on Charlie Rose this week: The impact on energy prices from speculation in the commodities market has been significant.
In short, futures market speculation has driven up the price of oil in a manner unrelated to fundamental supply factors. http://www.princeton.edu/~hhong/
We could get some immediate gas price relief from simply regulating the commodities markets, eliminating the Enron Loophole as recommended by the former Director of trading at the CFTC in Congressional testimony this June before the Senate Commerce Committee.
Of course, Republicans filibustered the bill to close this loophole so we'll have to wait until next year when there are 5+ more Democratic Senators to get some action.
Interesting.... A few days ago, going to www.obamabayh08.com sent you to the Democratic National Committee page. Now, it redirects you to the United Negro College Fund.
Dario, Warner's a great idea, but if it's Warner we're all being tricked. It's on record that he refused to be vetted, and he has sworn to the Virginia voters that he will not be running for VP.
Yeah, that Veneman plane photo freaked me out a bit, even though I immediately knew it was meant as a joke. Obama needs to do better than that!
Please, not Kerry. Obama already has likeability issues in some quarters, and whatever Kerry's strong points may be, people *did not* like him.
Schweitzer! Schweitzer! Schweitzer! There's the way to bring some down-to-earth human charm into the campaign.
Nice picture ;-)
Nate soooo wanted to make us talk endlessly about VPs.
That obscure Ohio law is a very, very big advantage for Obama - considering how important and tied Ohio is. There should be a top surrogate if not Obama himself in Ohio that week.
So much for the theory that the conflict in Georgia is helping McCain. Rasmussen polled the idea and found:
"Despite the Russian invasion of Georgia, daily tracking data shows no shift in voter priorities for Election 2008. Forty-one percent (41%) say economic issues are most important while just 22% name national security issues as the top priority (See Daily Snapshot)."
McCain is trailing by 3% still, 44%-41%.
Thanks cugel. I'm convinced...
An alternative explanation for the race tightening:
"24% of Democrats say it's at least Somewhat Likely that Clinton herself will end up as the Democratic standard bearer. That figure includes 11% who say it's Very Likely Clinton will be the nominee."
Teensy subsample notwithstanding, if these people who still think the Democrats could decide they need Hillary after all are asked by a pollster whether they support Obama or McCain, they have a strong incentive to say "McCain". This incentive will disappear after the convention.
I'm a huge Obama supporter, and I would like Nate to run a thread on how people feel Obama has run the campaign since the nomination was clinched in early June.
In my opinion, he has been running safe. Treading very lightly not wanting to make any waves, any real news. I believe this approach has allowed McCain to push the debate and Obama has been on the defensive all summer. It was last week when Obama ran his first negative ad against McCain. With the exception of Obama's trip abroad, he was MIA.
You can not coast to the presidency. Dukocus tried that and lost a humiliating defeat. Since winning 14 straight primaries in February, Obama has constantly been playing defense. He played defense against Hillary for the last 4 months and got his ass kicked, now he's playing defense against McCain for the last 2 months.
Obama has lost his entire lead, the race is tied, and supporters are left making excuses like "People are not paying attention yet" or "It's only August." This is the same stuff we say with Gore and Kerry.
The republicans attacked them every day with smear books, and false ads, lies, distortions, anything to bring their opponent down, and it worked. This year the smear tactics are flying every day, the McCain camp are playing false ads, the Muslim stuff is flying, now drug use and he's a "Marxist," all the same smears and Obama plays the same type of campaign as Gore and Kerry letting them smear you while you spend all your time defending attacks and smears.
I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least the Clinton's would be in there throwing this crap back at the republicans twice as hard. For every false accusations against them, they'd level 3 against McCain. Now I know this is dirty and beneath the pretty little democrats, but I am sick of watching democrats play nice and hope the American people won't "Buy it" this time while they continue to lose.
The race is tied, but Obama is losing. Instead of increasing his 5 point lead he had after the nomination, its completely disappeared. Now , we can sit hear and make excuses why, and how its still early, and Obama still has the upper hand, and thats all true, but why didn't he go on offense and have a 10 point lead right now instead of losing it all. Aren't you democrats sick and tired of watching our candidates getting smeared to death and losing while we keep our moral standards, run our fair campaigns, and play above board.
Obama would be a far better president than Hillary, however Hillary and the Clinton's would win. The Clinton's took the primary for granted and incompetence got them beat. Obama organized caucus states and beat her strategically. A ground game can only do so much in a general. The Clinton campaign was built for a general election against the republicans, not a democratic primary with their hands tied and they had to discuss whether going negative was worth it.
Just tonight I heard analysts pondering why the race is so tight after the "Good" 2 months Obama has had. They've been terrible. Obama fights his campaign on the ground, McCain fights it in the media through spin, controversial ads, and over the top campaign statements that get the media talking about what he wants them talking about.
McCain issued a 200 word statement accusing Obama of using the race card and the media was talking about it for a week. Thats about $500,000,000 worth of negative advertising against Obama for free. All the Paris talk and celebrity talk is an interesting way of getting the media covering what McCain wants them to cover, and Obama's campaign seems to be oblivious to whats going on.
I know democrats want to have elections based on policy, but the republicans know they can't win those elections, so they turn to the side show, and the media loves it, the republicans know they love it, and the republicans win. Obama HAS to go negative against McCain, not his policies, but him, his character, his money, his 9 homes, the family jet, his lack of understanding how to turn on a computer, his lack of economic understanding, the Phil graham mental recession stuff, all that personal material has to be used. If voters voted on Policy, Kerry and Gore would be President, instead we got Bush, who wasn't as smart or capable, but had better personal qualities after the republicans smeared his opponents to death, all the while the democrats talked about their policies.
If Obama stays on the high road, he will lose, and we'll get Hillary as President 4 years from now because they could care less about above board campaigns, they want to win, and you know what, as much as I deplore that kind of campaigning, I'm at the point I just want to win too.
Matt, you are coming around to my side at last.
Obama is a weak-willed candidate and he proves it with his head-scratching flip-lops on FISA, drilling, public financing, DC hangun ban, his vote for Cheney's energy bill in 2005 etc, etc.
His capitulation to the Clintons this past week show how he can be rolled easily and he shows a surprising lack of moral fortitude.
With the McCain campaign and the RNC having a big month in July and with $100M+ stored up for the fall, the beatings will only get worse.
The one bit of good news is that since he was rolled so badly by the Clintons there will be a roll call vote so if enough superdelegates switch, we might pick the winning candidate yet.
If a Democrat is not leading a Republican by at least 4 points before the conventions in a two-party race, the Democrat invariably goes on to lose, at least since the advent of television.
What Obama should have done is spend wildly to define McCain before he got his campaigh in order in the early June-mid July timeframe just as Clinton did to Dole in 1996. That expenditure opened a 12% lead in the polls and framed the story about the inevitability of Clinton's re-election.
Sorry to disapppoint you nj and matt: This should be a good month for Obama, starting with the faith forum thingummy tonight. Knvenshun 'kumbaya' moments a-plenty await. His supporters will also be keyed up after the olympics -thoughts of glory driving them on. McCain will be left praying for a war with Russia- his only chance to keep pace with Obama. Lovely.
Kerry for VP?. My God!
It´s going to be a rollercoaster ride from now on. It´s the tightest election season schedule ever and it starts today with the first joint campaign appearance of Obama and McCain.
It´s not optimal that Obama´s lead has shrunk from about 4% to 1-2% now, but the fundamentals haven´t changed. It could have been a risk for the Obama campaign to go negative and spend on ads like hell so early. In contrast to McCain he relies on his donors whereas McCain will soon receive a big government check. It could be that if Obama goes too negative many of the small donors will turn away from Obama´s promised new approach of policy. Remember, Obama wants to uplift people, while McCain wants to keep them down.
Alex, the fundamentals have changed and changed dramatically. Rather than the election being a referendum on Bush, it will be a referendum on Obama and Obama may not have the stature or experience to win.
Forget the high-brow tone, the name of the game is to win .. W-I-N. The feckless Obama campaigh has given McCain the gift of a lifetime by letting him have time to organize his campaign. If Obama had hit hard in mid-June, he would be up 8-10% now and the election would be over.
If the election were held today, I don't think Obama would win and that is a dramatic slide from six weeks ago. Besides, with McCain flush with cash now, he can campaign all the time while Obama will be tied up with various fundraisers.
Rasmussen tracking with leaners, Obama 46- McCain 45. Without leaners Obama leads 43-41.
Rudy: The market now rationally believes that there will be offshore drilling by popular demand, and the numbers could be far bigger long-term than commonly portrayed.
But the connection is still lacking between that belief and the spot price of oil. I don't really know of any producer of any product who says "Gee, there will probably be a whole lot more of this stuff out there in 10 years, so I'll lower my price today!"
At least the discussion has widened to include many causes for the rise and fall of oil prices. But to say that the Gang of 10 had an effect is speculative. Not only is there an absence of evidence, I haven't heard a reputable analyst say that there's enough additional supply to have a significant impact on prices in 10 years, much less today.
So why have oil prices been dropping? As others have pointed out, the dollar has picked up from its lows, people here are using less--and there's a sense that the world economy is slowing meaning decreased consumption worldwide, not just here. And not in 10 years, but right now.
I thought Obama's main problem was with white men, not women, so maybe he should be choosing a white man as VP
I like Matt's clearheadedness, even though we're on opposite sides of the debate. He hits the nail on the head with his "safeness" analysis, which is like playing prevent defense in football.
To the degree that there are Obama "smears" out there (and I would agree there have been a few, but disagree that trying to hang bad positions or associations around his neck constitute "smears"), the best defense is to confront the issues head on and make his own case for what is true history, much as McCain has done in response to personal attacks on him or his wife. It's the evasive or revisionist responses that make these attacks stick.
I think it's a mistake to take the "attack the messenger" response route, which backfired on Kerry, too. Looks vindictive and dodgy. Corsi certainly has his issues, but that doesn't obviate his criticisms, which are largely factual, albeit spun hard sometimes. The so-called "lies" list is minor points, not the substantive ones.
Attacks on the candidate's positions and speculation about what they'd do in office SHOULD be a tactic to help delineate positions in the minds of voters. their history of positions and decisions is the best roadmap. McCain has weaknesses on that front, too. The problem Obama faces is that too many of his positions are suspect to a large proportion of voters, and he tries to hard to mask them. I won't go through the laundry list; you know what they are. So that's why he's so vulnerable to negativism.
I have a rather cynical view: If America votes McCain into office and allows him to continue the Bush policies, it will deserve to lose its No.1 position on the world.
This election is a test. If low- and middle-class voters go for McCain in the current economic climate they deserve all the indirect tax increases McCain hides in his tax proposals, and they will deserve to feel their dependence on oil, and it will only get worse by the year if we don´t change our energy policy.
Yes, that´s cyncial, but it´s frustrating to see people getting distracted by gimmicks.
On Politico.com I saw some republican troll posting the same "Barry Soetoro" hush-hush-muslim-stuff that PeteKent and DarienCrow have been spreading here yesterday. If people fall for that, they deserve the Republicans - the truth is available, on the net, newspapers, campaign offices etc... Believing the typical campaign smears is just another way of being lazy. And if you´re lazy and vote McCain, you deserve it.
Sorry for the rant, but luckily Nate´s post was a bit off-topic as well.
Dsimon, if oil producers had their way, prices would always be higher. The best tactic to do that is to tightly control supply while demand is increasing, as OPEC has done. They've been helped by the inability of the US to increase production to help alleviate supply/demand inbalance because of handcuffs.
Producers don't set the price, the market does it for them. They'd like if they could, but it's a competitive market beyond the full influence of the cartel. The wind was at their back when demand was increasing full bore, but the price spike is now inducing creation of more supply worldwide (including offshore drilling in the US), which should continue tempering price for quite some time.
The best way for producers to maximize the amount of profit is to sell as much as possible when prices are artificially high, as it has been recently. Now that demand has naturally dropped because of the price spike (inducing reduced consumption), producers are going "ruh-roh," and trying to get as much out the door as possible even now, whether it be through reducing inventories or selling futures against future production.
Still, with the price of oil as high as it is, new projects are highly feasible, and there potentially is a lot of new supply entering the market over time, whether it be from offshore drilling or substitution of alternatives to oil use. The plausibility of that supply, in conjunction with the changing expectations for demand and the substitution effect of alternatives is what drives the forward-looking mechanism of the market price for oil.
NJ_Moderate said...
"Obama is a weak-willed candidate and he proves it with his head-scratching flip-lops on FISA, drilling, public financing, DC hangun ban, his vote for Cheney's energy bill in 2005 etc, etc."
Compared to who, McCain??? You're either ignorant or mis-informed. What about his legendary flip-flops on Taxes, Torture, Off-shore drilling, Immigration (Jaun McAmnesty, anyone?), Abortion, the Religious Right ("Agents of Intolerance"), Iraq timetables, etc, etc, etc...
McCain even flip-flopped on a law he created.
As for Obama. Anyone who thinks he had any intention of bowing to Republican pressure (and the MSM) by accepting public financing is unbelievably naive. He out-raised the Clinton machine by a significant margin during the primaries. They had to put themselves in debt to even compete with him after Super Tuesday. Does anyone dispute that fact? Of course not, so why would Obama hand McCain the advantage? And anyway, McCain's support of 527s was a deal-breaker for the Obama campaign.
Btw, doesn't McCain have to spend "wildly" before he's recieves public financing? He can't sit on that money. And isn't Obama still accumulating funds for the fall? If he doesn't use that money to define McCain as a liar and a flip-flopper with ties tie to DHL (Ohio) and ExxonMobil, then I will be concerned.
Good ad pairing McCain with Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0
NJ_Moderate said...
"The feckless Obama campaigh has given McCain the gift of a lifetime by letting him have time to organize his campaign. If Obama had hit hard in mid-June, he would be up 8-10% now and the election would be over."
Again, you've shown your ignorance. McCain had plenty of time to organize his campaign when Clinton and Obama were going at each other. Afterall, McCain clinched the Republican nomination months before Obama, did he not? And he was leading in the national polls, was he not? McCain had more time to shore-up his base, fund-raise, campaign in key states, not to mention go on a World Tour with Lyndsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. If anyhthing, it's Obama who has had to organize following a bruising primary.
It's amusing to me how people seem to forget that inconveniant little fact. Didn't Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans want to extend the Democratic race to the convention?
As a so-called moderate, who were your first choices for president during the primaries?
dsimon>>So why have oil prices been dropping?<<
Spot price for WTIC has dropped from $145/bbl to $115/bbl in one month. This has little to do with supply, demand or the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar. What we are seeing is the unwinding of massive positions taken by speculators in oil futures. The news items about American demand for oil being marginally down and the political noise about solar, wind and drilling was enough for a few traders to dump their contracts. Once a trickle of selling becomes enough to break the upward price trend line, that's when the stampede for the exits starts.
One of the truisms in markets is that large, sharp increases or decreases in price are the sign of overspeculation and not supply/demand. The oil market has now revealed itself to have been in something of a bubble as hedge funds, pension funds, and big investors obviously had been loaded up on oil futures contracts.
To fix this problem we need to put limits on leverage. Last I knew you could buy an oil contract with 6:1 leverage. Cutting that back to something like 2:1 would dampen the volatility in oil prices.
Bottom line in all this: sometimes the free market is not always best. You need some government regulation.
All you guys are missing the point, the democrats aren't weak, thats nonsense, Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam while Bush cowered like a dog. Its that Democrats believe you should win on your policy positions, while Republicans know they can't so they result to lies, and personal attacks and media spin, all this bullshit.
Believe it or not republicans, we really do find this stuff repulsive. But, this shit works, if democrats spend the entire election defending themselves from swift boat attacks and book hit jobs, then you never get to policy. If voters voted policy, democrats would win every time, but our country is going down a shit hole because they don't, and they won't this time either. It's got nothing to do with strong or weak, its how low are you willing to stoop to win. Republicans have no line, anything goes.
All this would not matter but for the media, the US media doesn't cover news, they cover outrage and conflicr, anything to keep people watching. Thats why Paris hilton and the race card get more TV time than the best way to fix our energy problem. You can bring in 3 experts to argue the merits of each plan, or you can bring in 3-4 political "Analysts" to sling mud and call names, get upset and make for great Television viewing.
The Clinton's sling mud, lots of it, nothing is off limits. Obama, Kerry, Gore, stick to the issues. Not because they have too, but because they choose to. They believe they can win taking the high road. Sorry guys, your wrong, and history proves it.
Interesting read on what McCain is going to due to eliminate a major Obama bounce from the Convention.
Read Here: McCain set to fight the Obama Surge at the DNC
Wimpy, you're no stranger to using futures contracts in order to finance today's hamburger by paying on Tuesday.
This nonsense about speculators driving the market while ignoring fundamnetal factors is dangerously naive.
To propogate that erroneous storyline from last month by changing the scenario to match up with what has happened price-wise (totally blowing a hole in the canard) is nothing short of pompousness.
I don't understand this fear of the free market. Don't you understand that government meddling causes far more distortions? Regulation is neccessary to keep markets fair, but shouldn't be used to attempt price outcomes.
Speculators are necessary in markets, providing liquidity. If they have the financial backing to responsibly use leverage, that enables more liquidity, benefiting all. Liquidity makes markets more efficient.
For example, if Southwest Airlines hadn't been able to use leverage to buy forward its fuel needs, it couldn't afford to purchase as much as it did.
Similarly, if an investor has invested capital in companies that are creating new energy supplies, he can hedge the risk by selling long-term contracts against the earnings prospects. If energy prices go up, he makes money on the company but loses some back on the hedge, and vice versa.
By investors using leverage to hedge, they can invest more capital in such companies, rather than having money tied up non-productively. Taking the ability to use leverage reduces capital availability.
If speculators correctly recognized that supply and demand were out of balance and bought accordingly, that gets the market into equilibrium faster than it would otherwise. Smart people helping make the market more efficient should be encouraged, and dumb people will pay for their mistakes.
To the degree that speculators helped push up the market price, it was only a very temporary phenomenon. It also created the opportunity for sellers to trade against it at attractive prices, which is clearly happening now, quickly bringing back equilibrium.
Speculators became a convenient short-term scapegoat for some politicians on both sides of the aisle, but providing a misleading and incomplete explanation that doesn't stand up under examination.
You should read about the onion futures market to understand what happens when speculators are driven out of markets. Volatility increases, not decreases.
The democrats are going to have wall to wall coverage and McCain thinks a few commercials are going to have any effect? It's about all they can do but in the end its futile.
Rudy: there potentially is a lot of new supply entering the market over time, whether it be from offshore drilling or substitution of alternatives to oil use. The plausibility of that supply, in conjunction with the changing expectations for demand and the substitution effect of alternatives is what drives the forward-looking mechanism of the market price for oil.
What's missing from the argument is why the availability of supply that's at least (by the most optimistic estimates) seven years down the road should have any substantial impact on oil prices today. There has to be more than just an assertion that it does. I think there are far more plausible explanations for what's going on on the demand side right now: as you said, the price spike has (not surprisingly) caused people to cut back on use both immediately and in the very near term. I just don't see how if I make widgets, and I know there will be a lot more widgets on the market in 10 years, why I would start charging less (or people would be paying less) for widgets now if people need the same amount of widgets they always did.
I agree that the speculation theory has little to back it up. I've read too many articles from economists on both sides of the political spectrum to give that idea much credibility, even though I've talked to a congressman or two who seemed to have convinced themselves that the speculators are responsible.
$51,000,000 this month. Not bad homie.
And of course it's photoshopped. Compare the shades of blue and red on the text to anywhere else on the plane. There is a marked difference.
Lastly, my money is on Hillary Clinton as vp. That's the only reason I could think of as to why the Obama campaign has yet to establish a presence in Arkansas. They must view it as a "gimme state" Additionally I believe she brings him Florida which he is far more desperate to win than is outwardly apparent. She also bites in to whatever small latino share McCain is able to secure.
This is simply a prediction of the ticket and hardly an endorsement.
Hello Everyone,
Just came by to ask how many of you will be tuning in to Fox News to watch the McCain-Obama question-answer program. The Saddleback Showdown is on 8pm eastern 5pm pacific. It will be refreshing to see Obama so far away from a teleprompter. That's FOX NEWS to everyone here... Finally a fair and balanced event with BOTH these guys.
Shame... I haven't seen a single post from PeteKent or VC since Nate called us trolls yesterday. I really thought that Nate wanted this to be a fair and balanced blog and there were just a few that wanted to hate on us... but I guess I was wrong. But it confirms the true motive behind 538...
Electoral Projections Done Left
I'll still come by on election night... but unless I see a little respect for Americans on the right of the issues I'll be limiting my posts because all you people want to hear is echos of your own pathetic platform.
Seje, I see two problems with your Hillary theory (aside from the fact that Obama won't want her and Bill anywhere near his campaign).
1. Obama just caved in and allowed Hillary's name to be placed in nomination at the convention. Why would she demand such annoying, counter-productive crumbs if she were going to be given the bigger prize of VP?
2. Your point about Hillary and Latinos may have been true in February, but Obama has been sewing up the Latino vote even better that Hillary in the past couple of months, according to every poll I've seen.
Rudy>>This nonsense about speculators driving the market while ignoring fundamnetal factors is dangerously naive.
To propogate that erroneous storyline from last month by changing the scenario to match up with what has happened price-wise (totally blowing a hole in the canard) is nothing short of pompousness.
I don't understand this fear of the free market...
For example, if Southwest Airlines hadn't been able to use leverage to buy forward its fuel needs, it couldn't afford to purchase as much as it did.<<
Rudy, I'm afraid you're letting your rose-colored glasses distort your perception of what really happened in the oil market. Is your revisionism intentional or just a product of innocent wishful thinking? Please don't distort Southwest Airline's use of private long-term jet fuel contracts with the public oil market. The two are completely unrelated.
There are two types of buyers in oil futures markets: commercials and speculators. The commercials actually take delivery of the stuff and use futures to manage their inventory. Speculators just buy and sell the contracts in an office and never take delivery.
What we saw is a classic contango bubble. Specs bought today's oil at $120 and shorted next month's oil at $125 and pocketed the $5. This is like a ponzi scheme, it works as long as leveraged traders keep buying the outer month contracts to keep that curve tilted up.
The problem is that 6:1 leverage provides too much liquidity and artificially boosts demand beyond the actual physical demand for the product. We see the same scenario unfolding now in the housing market.
Once again history repeats itself. Unregulated free markets always boom and crash as people get greedy, whether you're talking about houses, oil, dot com stock, or Dutch tulips.
Excessive leverage in houses and oil not only causes excessive price volatity it also damages the overall economy by eating up credit and making lenders gun shy to lend. We need government regulation to require mortgage lenders to actually check out the credit worthiness of the buyer. We need the government to limit oil futures leverage so that you and I don't have to pay $4.50 gas to finance a hedge fund's greed to capture contango spreads. Free markets are good but you need a teacher on the playground to keep the kids in line.
graham- the clinton convention thing is called a 'sop' not really 'caving' - if any of you have read the Aeneid -it's like when Aeneas throws Cerberus a little drugged doggy biscuit so he can creep gaily past the three-headed pest. The Clintons will stop causing trouble, and Obama can march on to the presidency no problemo.
addendum: I agree with the view that the Pennch connection is kind of a nail in bayh's vp prospect coffin. And I'm wondering if the women haven't been prematurely written off (McCaskill and Sebelius) here. Those two I see as deal-sealers and sexist blogging shouldn't be an impediment to their selection.
Given that Nate decided to put up the photoshopped plane and there has been some VP discussion I'll just say I came to a personal revelation on Obama's choice.
It has to be Wes Clark. I know he doesn't exactly bring a state and is a bit lacking on the stump but given the geo-political issues facing this country (Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, ME, China etc. etc.) that have been made worse by Bush, Clark seems like the answer for the country and for helping win the election.
As a 4 star general, decorated war hero and former supreme allied commander of NATO, Clark neutralizes a key McCain strength and a key Obama weakness. As a military man he understnads chain of command and would easily accept the secondary role of the Veep. He also has a Masters in Econ and was a Rhodes scholar, so he is clearly a smart cookie.
It really dawned on me when I say his interview on CNN about the Georgia crisis. The best explanation and path forward I have seen to date. It is very clear his foregin policy philosophy fits with that Obama so there should be no friction.
http://securingamerica.com/node/3074
Go here for the transcript of his interview.
Obama/Clark '08
Wes We Can!!!
wimpyVO2max,
Excellent post. The deregulation of the nergy market occurred in 2000.
Senate Bill 3283, also named the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Phil Gramm were listed as one of the bill’s co-sponsors. Like it had in the House, this bill was destined to go nowhere until, late one night, it was attached as a rider to an 11,000-page appropriations bill – which was signed into law.
Now traders had an officially deregulated market for energy futures.
Wesley Clark fits the mold. Could very possibly be the guy.
Dsimon, I thought I'd addressed the forward-looking mechanism point amply earlier, but I'll elaborate a little more, hopefully not to the point of boredom.
What you do have to accept at face value is that markets are fairly efficient -- that the market price at any time reflects the best available knowledge about the balance of supply and demand and that trades are made at the prices at which both sellers and buyers think they're getting a good deal.
That's not exactly true, and often emotion or groupthink causes some temporary distortions from reality, but the market continually recalibrates and the price gravitates back. Thus, anyone who want to prattle about manipulation
The oil market is a little different than normal because of the presense of OPEC, a cartel which is there to attempt to maximize price by limiting supply production by its members. Its effect ebbs and flows, and in recent years, it's been able to accomplsh its task largely because worldwide demand has been increasing. Personally, I think it's about to enter one of its disfunctional periods because demand is sagging, but the member nations get dependent on the revenue, so will start cheating on quotas to try to make back some of the revenue.
In order to fully grasp the depth of the forward-looking mechanism, it's helpful to think like a producer. They don't all think alike, and often have different objectives or motivations. Your typical "big oil" company thinks differently than Kuwait, which thinks differently than Venezuela. Some, like those whose managements have jobs that depend on performance, have shorter-term objectives than those who are sitting on a big finite pool of oil that they must view as a lifetme asset to be used most productively. Some are using the revenue to support population growth or build military might.
All of these facets come together in the marketplace, and ultimately price boils down to supply and demand, both short-term and long-term.
As far as your widget analogy goes, here's how that long-term supply visibility manifests itself in the current market price: it's part of the mosaic of knowledge in the marketplace about future supply/demand dynamics, and that knowledge induces the producers to shift their thinking as to the best way to make the most amount of money, both short-term and long-term. Not all producers will react the same way, but on balance, they will be somewhat less optimistic about what price will be in the future (based on more supply), so some will be induced to try to make more money immediately, whereas they had previously been thinking that there was no rush because prices kept going up.
Thus, the prospect of more supply pushes down price fairly immediately. Your widget producer DOESN't know that people will buy the same amount they always have, and he's vulnerable to losing market share to widget makers that can sell more cheaply than him. So, maybe you lower prices now to preempt competition and make it tougher for new competitors to get a foothold.
The thought process of producers involves a myriad of factors and scenarios that will affect the supply/demand equation down the road and their ability to make money. It's fair to say that the aggregate wisdom of the market is greater than the wisdom of any individual player, becasue it considers the actions of all players, while an individual player can only act from his own viewpoint, while also trying to consider the logical actions of other players.
One might ask, why would, say, Saudi Arabia be willing to pump more oil at lower prices after having distained production increases just recently when prices were rising? (I'm not saying this is the case, but I do think it will happen.)
Well, when prices were going up stratospherically, demand looked like it would continue unabated, so to maximize total revenue it made more sense to contribute to supply shortages and hope to induce further price rise. They were also smart enough to recognize the severe limitations of alternative fuels in any forseeable time frame, so there was little perceived threat from alternatives. They saw that US producers were succcessfully being hamstrung, largely because environmental concerns (real or unreal) were trumping supply concerns.
Suddenly (over a couple months), three things happened:
1. US demand reached the tipping point and dropped somewhat sharply (aka price elasticity of demand).
2. US consumers, frustrated much more by oil costs than by enviromental concerns (some of which are increasingly dubious, others very real but relatively less important in economic crunch time), finally began to recognize how artificially limiting domestic production was increasing US vulnerability to foreign supplies and increases in world demand. So, finding ways to increase domestic production jumped to the top of the list, and offshore drilling where we know big reserves lie is the low-hanging fruit.
3. World demand dropped both because of price elasticity effects and because many foreign economies were finally weakening, lagging the US slowdown.
So, now, Saudi Arabia and all the other producers recalibrate their thought processes and have to decide how the changes affect their moneymaking outlooks, adjusting strategy and behavior accordingly, perhaps choosing to take more revenue in now while prices are still historically high.
The big fear all oil producers must have is that someday there might be an economic alternative to oil for transportation. That will cause massive price drops when a truly significant breakthrough happens, even if commercially 10 years away from affecting demand. Same logic as why future supply affects near-term prices.
It's in the oil producers' best interests to keep the value proposition of oil use high so that the hurdle rate for new alternatives is tough, and so that substitution of alternatives (like coal) doesn't further reduce demand.
Should the world truly start running out of oil rather than having contrived shortages, the price will go up and stay up. producers won't care about the elasticity or substitution effects because would be truly constrained, so their best interests would be to preserve underground assets.
That's not the case now. Some day it might be true, and economically-feasisble alternatives will proliferate accordingly. Efforts to accelerate that process through contrived shortages are doomed.
People correctly say that high prices will spur innovation, but that's only true when the market believes that prices will stay high.
Contrived shortages don't fit that definition. The fundamental problem most oil alternatives have is that they cost more, not less. No amount of government subsidy will change that. Once those alternatives naturally cost less, they will be embraced by the market and consumers. Not until.
To the degree that politicians embrace contrived shortages and high prices to support another agenda, they become at odds with the economic interests of their voters and vulnerable to attack.
No, I believe that Clinton will be the VP pick. With the bad polling results in the past week, Obama's chance of winning is rapidly dropping and Clinton is his only chance to consolidate support and win. It will make him look very weak due to the ease of rolling him as she will immediately overshadow him. However, he has gotten rolled over the past 6 weeks and being a weak winner is better than being a strong loser.
Reading the back-and-forths on the energy debate makes me sad. There's a perpetual stream of accusations on this site of people being suckered by taglines and propaganda, but one of the worst is the assertion that speculators have unnecessarily driven up energy prices.
That's just wrong, and the vast majority of economists have debunked that theory. Speculators have just become an expedient scapegoat for politicians who are too ignorant to address real issues.
And, unfortunately, a whole segment of society have been "suckered" by their bull shit. Oh, you can find a couple of economists at "Ivy League" schools who try and parade the same idea, but the only "evidence" they can provide is an increase in the trading volume/open interest of non-commercial futures traders (speculators) as prices have gone higher. The correlation is spurrious. Increased speculation DOES NOT cause increasing prices. On the contrary, increasing prices from tightening supplies (or other bullish fundamentals) bring more investors into the market.
Rudy explained it very well in most of his previous threads. I just wish many of the rest of you weren't so dense in trying to comprehend it.
Good grief.
This seems so bizarre that maybe it reinforces RX's theory.
A total head fake?
Clinton has about the same chance of being vp as I do ZERO! She would lose Obama 2 or 3 states and having the clintons waiting to stab you in the back would not be a plus.
Most of this polling in the last week has come from Rasmussen, so I wouldn`t get to worked up. Most people are not paying attention to the election right now plus I just think Rasmussen is underestimating Obama support.
Of course as the election gets closer and it looks like Obama will win he will adjust his support accordingly.
Oh, Wimpy, you're spouting full-out incongruities. Half-truths. Wild speculation and extrapolation with no evidence. Horsehockey.
The contango of which you speak (an upward sloping forward price curve) is the normal state for markets. It largely represents the time value of money. When it's greater than the time value of money, it is financially beneficial to borrow money to take advantage of the price difference. That's called arbitrage. Goes on every day in every market, and doesn't net-net move prices because as much is being sold as is being bought.
To the degree that the market didn't arbitrage it out, it was because of perception of future shortages, much as we discussed earlier. To the degree that people speculated on that spead reducing, it did help market liquidity, but exactly as much for sellers as buyers, so again no net effect on prices. No matter what, it can only be a temporary phenomenon.
As far as the Southwest Airlines contracts go, they most certainly were the product of the futures market. Even when contracted with a private seller, that party would naturally hedge its risk in the futures markets.
The lion's share of all future markets activity is producer hedging. You think when Goldman Sachs is buying or selling huge gobs of contracts, that it's speculating? More often than not it's representing a client like kuwait, or Exxon, or whomever.
Now, it's true that there are individual floor traders or stock jockeys who are trading based solely on chart patterns, money flows, rumors, momentum, or whatever, and are wholly ignorant (willfully) of the bigger picture, But what they are reacting to is the aggregate wisdom of the market. Such types maybe can muscle the market a little here and there, but they're small fish in the greater context, and their effects are only temporary. Any of those who got caught wrongway in the turnaround got their clocks cleaned, but can't be blamed for causing large price movements, either on the updside or the downside.
I agree with you that excessive speculation always causes a nasty counterreaction, and thta's happening in the oil market now. But the free market is the best prevention and cure for that. In this case, government regulation contributed to the upside price movement because of the handcuffing of energy producers to generate more supply to meet increasing demand.
Mortgage fraud is a wholly different story, but is a huge problem that has shaken our financial system to its core. Way different than the dynamics of the oil market. It was an avoidable problem, and one that the stupid investors buying that paper have paid dearly for, as they should. That's how the free market cleanses itself.
What people did was already illegal, but the normal regulating device of a lender managing its own risk was abdicated, as brokers were packaging these mortgages and selling them as fast as they could originate them. Warning signs were out there, and a lot of people warned against them well in advance. But buyers were stupid, and chased seemingly low-risk yield. If they weren't stupid, demand wouldn't have been so high.
Definitely it was a failure of the market, and one that was AIDED by regulation, because the investors in these packages of mortgages thought they were mostly protected by federal insurance, so they decided they didn't need to do appropriate due diligence. Big mistake, and now we're all paying for it in reduced credit availability and potentially higher taxes to cover the bailouts.
More damage is done via regulation when it distorts the marketplace, especially when it tries to manage price. Government regulation of price creates shortages or rationing if sellers aren't willing to sell at the regulated price. Plenty of history on that.
Because politicians are so inept in understanding the unintended consequneces of their actions or the many facets of market drivers, their prescriptions are almost always severely flawed somehow -- either enabling gaming of the rules or causing an artificial price reaction.
His capitulation to the Clintons this past week show how he can be rolled easily and he shows a surprising lack of moral fortitude.
Can you guys explain to me exactly what you would have done in that situation?
It seems to me that you are saying "moral fortitude" means never compromising on anything. Ever.
Even when its a really trivial issue and a compromise will greatly benefit your side in the long run and a fight would be disastrous.
You must always stand your ground and never back down on anything!!
Don't you realize this is exactly why the current president has a 29% approval rating?!?!
Never compromising isn't "moral fortitude". Its stubbornness and its foolhardy.
Hillary came in a close second place. She wanted an empty piece of symbolism to acknowledge that it was a close race. What specifically did Obama have to gain by not giving it to her?
How would that benefit him, his party or his country in the long run?
Strength is about protecting what is important to you. Strength isn't about getting caught up in a pissing match over trivialities.
Seriously, can you tell me what you would have done and how doing anything opposite would have benefited Obama in the long run?
Hmm, Clark.... If that story is true, then Clark doesn´t deserve that treatment. You don´t take his PAC slogan and his role as a surrogate and then leave him in the desert. There must have been a deal struck before.
I have discounted the Obama/Clark ticket since Clark himself "endorsed" Sebelius for VP:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Wes_Clark_floats_ObamaSebelius.html
So he has been a sure bet on Secretary of Defense for me.
It is suspicious though that Arkansas is the state left out from the Obama ground campaign, there are no offices there. Is this a sign for an Arkansan VP? I would say no, because even Hillary wouldn´t make Arkansas safely blue without at least putting a LITTLE organisation effort in there.
Well, in a way Arkansas is the Democrats´ Maine. Blue on local level, red on national level. Maybe the Obama campaign saw no need to bless Arkansas with coattail effects, especially since Obama lost the primary there by 40+ percent.
There are 3 big names still missing in the convention schedule: Clark, Gore and Kaine. Gore and Kaine might be the ones to introduce Obama on Thursday - if Gore wants to get himself involved in it. But ignoring Clark is in fact strange - though Wes Clark´s son has posted on Daily Kos that his father wasn´t getting vetted.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/8/15/193737/216/425#c425
there is a longer version of that post but I failed to single it out and link it. I really hope there isn´t a rift between Clark and Obama...
I wasn't saying it was going to be Clark, just that I am 100% convinced that it should be.
Clark - Non-beltway insider, some political experience and international/management experience (he did run NATO during peace and war).
Biden - Another Senator, small state and a classic insider
Bayh - see Biden and then also add in the snooze factor
Clinton - Is this really change we can believe in... another senator and high negatives (doesn't really neutralize foreign policy meme either).
Sebelius - Outsider but not very worldly
Schweitzer - See Sebelius
The list goes on and on.
Clark is the hands down best choice. Plus he is very photogenic so Obama and him together will make for good visuals.
No Gallup today?
It looks as though Obama has no clue who he's going to pick. All the major candidates have speaking engagements already scheduled at the convention, but for Clark and Kaine, and there are valid reasons to suspect both of them are out of the running.
From a logical point of view, the Obama campaign is having trouble with white men, Obama need foreign policy, and preferably not another senator. Clark fits all those rolls. On paper he's the guy, but if he's not being vetted, it won't be him, but maybe he is being vetted and trowing us off? This game of cat and mouse can be discussed all night.
An experienced white male with military experience would be ideal. I don't know if there are any generals out there that the media have not discussed, but if Obama picks an unexpected candidate, I'd lay good odds its a military guy.
My personal choice is Biden, i like the guy, but I see the negatives. Either way we probably don't have long to wait, the pick will be made by next weekend.
In Politics as in life there are no win situations. The situation with Hillary is one of them. If Obama cuts ties or railroads the Clinton's, a portion of the party will be split off and Obama will never get them back, and it may cause problems at the conventions, and the media will discuss the risks and stupidity of what he just did.
If on the other hand he complies with the Clinton's, goes for unity for the sake of giving in, the media says he gave in and looked weak, and the convention may be trouble. There are no good options. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The Clinton's are the ones not being cooperative and putting Obama in this position.
Obama seems to be capitulating to the Clinton's quit a bit, and taking heat for it. Behind the scenes I'm sure these two groups do not get along. I suspect if Obama becomes President, he will have retribution against them on his time, in his own way. For now, he bites his tongue, and bears it.
Realistixx, I like Clark as a choice as well. It is a bold choice. Clark is outspoken, backs down from no one, is not remotely afraid to criticize McCain on the military, puts Arkansas back in play, is a buddy of the Clintons, Southern White male, Supreme Nato commander, etc...
I do agree with Matt that Obama has been playing defense for about a month now, since Europe. That said, Matt. Take a breath on the national polls. He was up 5 at the beginning of this week, and if you take 10 day averages, he has had a consistent 3-4 point national lead since early June. (There is an excellent graph on that from Alan Abramowitz.)
The race has been frozen, no matter how reactive this site is to 500 person robot polls from Rasmussen or criticisms that it is pro-Obama, a charge Nate has bent over backwards to disprove as he becomes in demand as an analyst. (From realclear to pollster.com to 270 to win, the other sites all like Obama's chances better than does 538, and in fact, 270towin, not exactly a leftist site, gives the dems a 92% chance of 270 and the Gops a 7% chance with 1% a tie, a far cry from Nate's 59%). All this is NOT to challenge Nate's methodology, just to say there are other, equally sharp and interested analysts who see the numbers more positively for Obama.
Also, I think we need to take Obama's camp at their word on what is important to them, based on their track record. Consistently from day one of the primaries, they said it was all about delegates, and they utterly schooled the Clintons on that. Now they say it is all about EVs. David Plouffe was quoted again as saying "I don't care at all about national polls" and they have also been quite explicit about which 18 states they are targeting. This week alone, Obama has varied between tied and 6 up on McCain in the tracking, and I guarantee you that is based on statistical noise, party id, likely voters, etc...if there is a 2 week period where McCain is ahead consistently in even ONE national poll, then we can pay attention. From what I have seen, looking back over about 200 national polls the last 2 months, McCain has a ceiling of about 45% and Obama has a floor of about 45%.
As for the state polls, please remember that, as Republican Scott Rasmussen's polling firm is the only one doing massive state polling, and therefore this site has no choice but to rely on one firm, with its own set of party ids, "leaners" "likely voters" etc...we need to take that with a bucketful of salt. If you have caller ID on a landline, you will never "speak with a robot poller" and if you have a cell phone you will never speak with a robot poller. Who tends to answer their phone when an unknown caller calls? Either someone who is very lonely or someone without caller ID or voice mail.
Anyway, to paraphrase the Clintons in 1992, it's the EVs, stupid - that is the ONLY game in town, and if the Obama team is anything, it is NOT stupid. The real question to ask is if you HAD to bet your life savings on either Obama or McCain getting to 270 how many neocons and cons on this site would bet on McCain today? Hands up? I hear the crickets chirping.
All that said, it is unfortunate timing for Obama that the Georgian crisis erupted after he started his vacation, and it offered McCain an opportunity to play president, make pronouncements, rattle sabers and dispatch Tigger and Eeyore (Graham and Lieberman) as his own foreign team.
Can you imagine the howls of "presumption" arrogance" "hubris" from the "liberal media" if Obama had done such a thing?
I think Obama's folks believed that with the olympics and the summer dog days, they were going to lay low, take the brief hit on vacation and announce the VP with a huge ad buy the day of the US game for the gold medal in Beijing. The choice probably cost them a point or two in the natioanals, but they don't care about that anyway, and maybe it is as simple as they want a rested candidate, since unlike McCain, he has not been taking weekends off the past 18 months.
Just a guess and again, I like the choice of Clark. A bold move and one that will shock the media talking heads, as they have all decided it is BidenBayh...
Rudy, I understand the argument, but I still don't see evidence to back up the claim that the potential of new supply seven years down the road has a great influence in the minds of these producers.
You say that the prospect of such supply might goad some producers into lowering prices now to preempt competition. But there's always an incentive to preempt more competition; it's inherent in the market system. If you charge more than someone else, people will buy from someone else. There's simply no evidence that some future additional supply would change that incentive to any significant degree.
You cite several possible influences regarding the recent price decline, but there's no way to assign any value to the rather tenuous though processes involved in guessing what supply and demand will be 10 years from now.
On the other hand, our own government's Energy Information Agency has stated regarding offshore drilling that "any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." Perhaps their estimate of reserves was on the low side, but it's hard to see how an insignificant effect would somehow turn into a substantial effect even if they're off by 50%. And it's even harder to see how, if the effect in the future would be insignificant, the effect now would be substantial. I think those who claim the EIA has it wrong should explain why.
It's far, far more plausible to think that the worldwide economic forecasts are pessimistic and anticipating an economic slowdown with an accompanying drop in demand for oil--not in the next decade, but right now. Compared to that, I'd think that the effects of speculation about future supply would have only a minimal effect if any on today's oil prices.
There are plenty of reasons right now that justify the recent decline in oil prices (you've named many of them). Given that there's no need to speculate on the effect of future supply on today's prices, I don't see why it makes sense to do so--especially when there's no evidence to back up the claim.
dsimon said: "our own government's Energy Information Agency has stated"
You quote a government source as accurate and authoritarian? Hmm, that's funny. Isn't this the same government you (I'm assuming) call inept - the same one who failed miserably in it's response to Katrina, has issues in the DoJ, and has bungled military efforts.
And you think what their stated "opinion" is carries any water when the best and brightest economists in private industry and academia can't fully and accurately assess changing market conditions?
Rudy was just making a point, a good one at that. The market is perpetually trying to gauge the impacts of current and future conditions, and understanding all of the amalgamized components of quantitative and qualitative data that serve as market movers, both now and in the future, is no easy feat. But the market always gets it right in the end, and government interference and bloated opinions are worth about two good pisses in the wind.
Bottom line: I trust the market long before I trust the government.
You quote a government source as accurate and authoritarian?
First, I believe statements should be examined on their own merits. Anyone can be right some of the time. If I disagree with Newt Gingrich, I'll point out where I think he's wrong; I won't dismiss any statement just because it came from Newt Gingrich. If you want to criticize the EIA report on the merits, go ahead.
Second, not all government agencies are created equal in terms of credibility. The EPA has gotten a lot of stuff right, only to be stifled by political operatives (same with Justice and, for that matter, the military). And for the record, I haven't made a single post about Katrina.
Third, one would think that our government agencies would be biased in favor of claiming a big impact on oil prices from opening offshore drilling. The EIA analysis concludes the opposite.
Fourth, there are plenty of private, independent sources that say that offshore drilling will have no significant effect on future oil prices and little to no effect on prices today. In fact, I've heard no mainstream source cite the Group of 10's proposed compromise as a causal factor in the recent drop in oil prices. Some drilling advocates point to the timing, but coincidence is not cause and effect, especially when there are many other more immediately relevant factors at work (rising dollar, reduced demand in the US and elsewhere, and an anticipation of a near-term global economic slowdown).
I have no doubt that people in the market are analyzing all sorts of current and near-future conditions. I'm just making the argument that the prospect of future supply 10 years down the road will have minimal to zero impact on today's prices--especially when that supply is expected to have an insignificant effect when it actually comes onto the market.
But the market always gets it right in the end
I agree the market is usually an efficient mechanism. But if that were always true, we'd be getting better health results than Europeans. But we don't because the market puts the incentives in the wrong places for the efficient delivery of health care.
And I suppose the market does get a lot right in the end, but a lot of people can get hurt in the process (mortgage borrowers, mortgage owners, Bear Stearns). There are things government can do, such as disclosure requirements, that allow markets to work while smoothing out the bumps. Laws against misrepresentation and fraud are government "interference,""= and yet without them people could be duped into losing their livelihoods through no fault of their own, since you can't recover from a business that's already gone bust (which is the market's way getting it right in the end by punishing the fraud).
DSimon, you're going to believe whta you want to believe.
Almost all market-savvy economists would agree with my assertion that the prospect of meaningful future supply, which offshore drilling would undoubtedly produce, is reflected in price immediately, not years down the road. Not sure why you have such trouble with that concept. No one can exactly quantify it, but the sign is of indubitable direction.
You keep saying that producers would need to be goaded into reducing their prices now, but what I explained was that they'd be more inclined to increase production, which has the effect of pushing down price, all other things being equal. Maybe that's where your block is.
As far as the EIA report, it's contents are being distorted. which I think mostly started when the opposing politicians started referencing it as a tool to deflect support for offshore drilling, and the quote grew legs without anyone ever really reading the report or looking at that quote in context.
The reason it says what it does is it assumes that production ramp would be slow, so incremental production would be small initially in the context of the international market. Probably true. One could say that about any singular production source. What that statement ignores is the forward looking effect of the market and the huge long-term potential of those fields.
I don't think one should hang with bated breath on an incidental assumptions comment in a report by civil servants having nothing to do with economics.
It defies credulity to say that offshore drilling wouldn't make a meaningful dent in supply, and thus price. Just having more available domestic supply would reduce the potential volatility of energy prices because we'd be less vulnerable to OPEC manipulation.
The reserve estimates in that same EIA report for just the outer continental shelf is more than 50 billion barrels of oil and almost 300 Trillion (with a "T") cubic feet of gas. That doesn't even count Alaska. History shows that big pools such as these are almost always underrated.
This is a big deal, and that's why it resonates so with voters.
you're going to believe whta you want to believe.
We all have a tendency to accept data that agrees with our views and reject data that conflict with it. But I don't know whether one of us is more susceptible to that than the other.
Almost all market-savvy economists would agree with my assertion that the prospect of meaningful future supply, which offshore drilling would undoubtedly produce, is reflected in price immediately, not years down the road.... No one can exactly quantify it, but the sign is of indubitable direction.
I've looked at what others have to say on this issue, and I've found many analysts who say that the effect on future prices would be insignificant. I've found no source with data confirming a significant effect on today's prices. And if you can't quantify it, how do you know how important it is?
You keep saying that producers would need to be goaded into reducing their prices now, but what I explained was that they'd be more inclined to increase production, which has the effect of pushing down price, all other things being equal.
Is there any evidence that this is what is happening? And if more production is happening, is it in response to hypothetical future supply rather than present circumstances?
I don't think one should hang with bated breath on an incidental assumptions comment in a report by civil servants having nothing to do with economics.
I don't think the results of a government study should be dismissed simply because it comes from "civil servants." Some career civil servants get an awful lot right. Their conclusions should be graded and debated on their analyses, not on their status as government employees.
Moreover, I've read plenty of news reports citing independent analysts who say the price effect will be minimal.
It defies credulity to say that offshore drilling wouldn't make a meaningful dent in supply, and thus price. Just having more available domestic supply would reduce the potential volatility of energy prices because we'd be less vulnerable to OPEC manipulation.
It doesn't defy credulity if the added supply isn't enough to make much of a difference given worldwide production, and there are at least some (if not most) independent analysts who think that's the case.
Moreover, even if we could increase domestic production by an impressive 50%, we'd still be importing nearly half our oil. So it seems to me that the additional supply provides only marginal protection against OPEC manipulation.
Yes, the issue may resonate with voters, but I don't think they're being given a real long-term solution to the problem. Want to spend 40% less on gas? The best thing to do is make sure your next car is 40% more fuel efficient. Want to protect the nation from oil shocks? The best thing to do is to start transitioning off the stuff.
Drilling works against those long term goals. If it makes gas cheaper, we'll have more of an incentive to use it. It will delay the day when we make the decisions we need to make if we're going to kick our oil habit. That delay is not good for our foreign policy, our economy, or our environment. But if it's not going to have a substantial effect on prices, then there's far less reason to drill.
45% of our oil consumption goes into our gas tanks. European efficiency standards are already at 44 mpg. Right now, with today's technology. If in 10 years we drove those cars, we'd cut consumption by over 20% even if we did nothing else. And if in 10 to 20 years we don't have cars that don't need oil coming onto the market, shame on us for not taking the problem seriously.
It's hard to see why we couldn't substantially reduce our oil consumption within two decades and be mostly off of oil two decades later. If we're not really going to need the stuff, then it's hard to see why we should be so gung-ho about getting more of it.
But those are policy decisions we need to make. And we're not being asked to make them. Drilling only puts off the day that we make those decisions when I think it's far better if we start making those decisions now. But it remains to be seen if we're really serious about tackling this problem. Surely it doesn't help when politicians start touting gas tax holidays, an idea which had no support from any economist I know of.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment