OT Sold It!!!!!!!!!!!!

It means you have no other numbers, no other source, and no way to refute what I've posted, thats what it means.

They could be, but they aren't. Thats just your paranoid view.

Thats not what you originally said. Further, I'd venture a guess that some employers give more than 5% raises per year. Thus, your original statment is clearly forgotten now that you know you are wrong, and your new claim is debatable depending on employee and employer pay rates.

First, yes, it was a housing bubble with regard to prices. It is not a housing bubble with regard to the need for new housing. Second, the approval rating of a president proves nothing when it comes to the health of the economy. What this tells me is that again, you have no solid proof of what you are trying to claim, so you insist on tying two totally unrelated concepts together in the hopes of making yourself sound logical.

However, inflation has decreased since the first of the year. Thus, no matter what you call stagflation, if it involves a rising rate of inflation, its not happening now due to the decrease in the rate of inflation.

Reports are complete bullshit only to those that a) don't read them, or b) don't agree with their contents. You fit both categories. Until you post numbers proving me wrong, you can argue with yourself.

Proof?

God only knows what you are talking about, since you haven't referred to a solid bit of proof for anything you've claimed.

I can make up some numbers if it makes you feel better but they would be no more accurate than the ones that you posted.

How do you know? You were the one that made the claim that "How accurate they are is beyond your or my ability to know" so by your own admission, you don't.

I know what I said but what is the point of beating a dead horse. You are only going to see what you want to and never admit to any type of error so what is the point?

And that's all it would be is a guess and a bad one at that. While I'm sure that a few did get that and possibly more, most did not.

LOL, wrong again and I'm not the one that came up with this. This came from the experts on CNBC who's word I would take over yours any day of the week. Any way you want to spin it Max, prices on most things are going up due to massive increases in energy and commodities costs while employee salaries are stagnant and the economic growth is miniscule and that is stagfaltion.

LOL, you really need to read some of those reports you keep talking about. There was no need for most of that housing because if there were, there simply could not be what is now considered an 11 month supply.

Are you really this stupid??? It damn well does.

No, it is just more of your lame spin as usual.

Yawn, please show me exactly where prices are falling. Now the rate of infaltion may have dropped some but until it drops below the level of pay increases it still exists. For someone with 2 degrees, you still don't have a clue.

The numbers are what they are but only a fool would believe them on blind faith, especially when every economic indicator says something very different.

This is your most intelligent post in this entire thread.

Speculators do not normally start trends, they follow them and there simply not enough of them to cause the price to rise like this. The real problem is in demand. Do to our idiotic globalization, we have awakened a few sleeping giants such as India and China. Now many of the people in these countries can afford and want things such as cars and they require fuel. Then when you add in the fact that these two countries as well as a few others subsidize the cost of fuel, the soaring cost of oil has no effect on the citizens of these countries and the demand continues. If it were primarily caused by pure speculation, the last rise in oil supplies should have sent the price of oil down but instead, it not only held, it went up. Now the word on the street is that many of these countries will end their subsidies of fuel prices very soon as well as China after the Olympics which will hopefully return the price of oil to a more managable level. That is until the moronic population of the US gets another bug up there ass and begins buying oversized gas guzzeling beasts again and since we have already done this very thing twice before, I see no reason why it will not happen again.

Well, thats where you start to be wrong. There have always been enough speculators, since ANYONE with money can be a speculator, especially now that the PC can get you on the world markets. So we've got the numbers. Next, with the dollar down the way it is, a lot of normally conservative overseas investment funds have extra cash. Commodities like oil are a great way to hedge against the falling dollar. Hell, if you doubt me, take a look at any AP news story about oil prices. There is ALWAYS a short paragraph explaining this. Thus, we also have the cash.

Numbers of investors with extra cash to invest, and they want to protect themselves against the falling dollar. Oil is the way to do it.

The demand currently is not any more than it was this time last year, according to many sources, including this one:

If you look, U.S. demand falls slightly over the past year. Also, we're using about 25% of the oil, compared to some that say we use 33%. Another interesting note, the Europeans use 75% as much as we do, yet have roughly

50% of the population and area.

This site:

Suggests that: "Global oil product demand has been lowered for both 2007 and 2008, to 85.8 mb/d and 86.8 mb/d respectively. Slower economic growth, high prices and

2006 baseline adjustments suggest that OECD oil demand will contract for the third successive year in 2008. Non-OECD demand growth in 2008, led by China and the Middle East, remains strong at 3.7% or 1.4 mb/d, leaving growth for the world as a whole at 1.2% (+1.0 mb/d)."

Demand appears to be dropping, even with China using more. True this is due to prices, but the prices are driving demand down, rather than demand driving prices up.

Our "idiotic globalization" was/is driven by two things: Capitalism, and humanitarianism. We want cheaper goods, but we don't want the them made in sweatshops.

Thats true. But, as noted above, worldwide demand is on a downward trend.

Actually, your statement above should read:

Since it was primarily caused by pure speculation, the last rise in oil supplies should have sent the price of oil down but instead, it not only held, it went up.

What you seem to have missed is, you note that supplies have gone up. You also note that the normal result is prices will go down. You further note they did not. You FAILED to note that the reason is exactly what you discarded: speculation.

This may have an effect, but the primary reason why we have high prices is because of the low value of the dollar. This can be directly attributed to the Fed flooding the market with money to keep Wall Street Banks solvent. The problem is this: If the Fed had not flooded the market, then more banks would have failed, dumping more people out of work, causing a huge ripple effect on the world economy. Instead, we average Joes get to suffer through the results of greedy bankers that made stupid decisions and used questionable lending (120% equity loans on a home??) practices.

Sure, it'll happen again and again. No big deal, thats economics 101.

But the real question here is this: Where is your proof that speculation has nothing to do with the price of oil? I've shown proof of world demand going down. I've also shown proof that the dollar is weak, and told you that you can find proof of the connection in any AP news story on oil.

Now, again, Where is your proof that its a simple demand problem?

Well, thats where you start to be wrong. There have always been enough speculators, since ANYONE with money can be a speculator, especially now that the PC can get you on the world markets. So we've got the numbers. Next, with the dollar down the way it is, a lot of normally conservative overseas investment funds have extra cash. Commodities like oil are a great way to hedge against the falling dollar. Hell, if you doubt me, take a look at any AP news story about oil prices. There is ALWAYS a short paragraph explaining this. Thus, we also have the cash.

Numbers of investors with extra cash to invest, and they want to protect themselves against the falling dollar. Oil is the way to do it.

The demand currently is not any more than it was this time last year, according to many sources, including this one:

If you look, U.S. demand falls slightly over the past year. Also, we're using about 25% of the oil, compared to some that say we use 33%. Another interesting note, the Europeans use 75% as much as we do, yet have roughly

50% of the population and area.

This site:

Suggests that: "Global oil product demand has been lowered for both 2007 and 2008, to 85.8 mb/d and 86.8 mb/d respectively. Slower economic growth, high prices and

2006 baseline adjustments suggest that OECD oil demand will contract for the third successive year in 2008. Non-OECD demand growth in 2008, led by China and the Middle East, remains strong at 3.7% or 1.4 mb/d, leaving growth for the world as a whole at 1.2% (+1.0 mb/d)."

Demand appears to be dropping, even with China using more. True this is due to prices, but the prices are driving demand down, rather than demand driving prices up.

Our "idiotic globalization" was/is driven by two things: Capitalism, and humanitarianism. We want cheaper goods, but we don't want the them made in sweatshops.

Thats true. But, as noted above, worldwide demand is on a downward trend.

Actually, your statement above should read:

Since it was primarily caused by pure speculation, the last rise in oil supplies should have sent the price of oil down but instead, it not only held, it went up.

What you seem to have missed is, you note that supplies have gone up. You also note that the normal result is prices will go down. You further note they did not. You FAILED to note that the reason is exactly what you discarded: speculation.

This may have an effect, but the primary reason why we have high prices is because of the low value of the dollar. This can be directly attributed to the Fed flooding the market with money to keep Wall Street Banks solvent. The problem is this: If the Fed had not flooded the market, then more banks would have failed, dumping more people out of work, causing a huge ripple effect on the world economy. Instead, we average Joes get to suffer through the results of greedy bankers that made stupid decisions and used questionable lending (120% equity loans on a home??) practices.

Sure, it'll happen again and again. No big deal, thats economics 101.

But the real question here is this: Where is your proof that speculation has nothing to do with the price of oil? I've shown proof of world demand going down. I've also shown proof that the dollar is weak, and told you that you can find proof of the connection in any AP news story on oil.

Now, again, Where is your proof that its a simple demand problem?

Tbone, you need to read this:

Take note of the paragraphs that say:

Buying the current July crude oil futures contract means you're buying oil that will be delivered by the end of July. But most investors who trade futures have no intention of ever accepting the underlying oil: Like stock investors who frequently buy and sell their holdings, they're simply betting that prices will rise or fall.

Of late, on the Nymex, oil futures have been rising.

Why? Blame the falling dollar. Oil is priced in U.S. dollars, and the weaker the dollar gets, the more attractive dollar-denominated oil contracts are to foreign investors - or any investor looking for a safe haven in the turbulent stock market.

Home prices have simply returned to where they should be. It's a market correction after a massivly over inflated bubble. My home is down $75K from where it was 2 years ago. That puts it slightly above where it was

3 years ago.

Please state where you obtained your data proving stagnant income levels .

See what I mean with you always looking negative? Meanwhile me and most of my conservative friends are happy, doing well and living life to its fullest. Sure we face the same ups and downs, but we have a totally different look towards things....postive and happy, rather than negative doom and gloom.

I'll clarify for ya! Most subprimes did not go to high risk OR poor credit OR low income etc. Got it?

TBone wrote: \

Most cities do not sustain building booms. Construction workers move around the country following the work. However, what you say is true. In a booming city such as Phoenix in most years finding enough framers, drywallers, etc. can be very difficult. Most construction sites always have huge signs advertising for such.

I don't see such workers on the street corners. I've been all over the country and have not seen anyone on a street corner looking for construction work. Your area must be unique.

No city has a sustained amount of construction with a steady number of workers. Not gonna happen. It varies up and down.

lol, you're one to talk! You blab all about the great economy of the

90's and ignore the tech bubble that it was.

Huh? If they report left wing stories they aren't biased huh? Too funny! At least you just showed your own true bias!

20% is growth!! Lots of it! What MSNBC failed to tell you was the amount of increase in values prior. Phoenix saw the largest increases in the housing bubble in the country. As you said, that led to massive speculator buying and also a large price correction now. However, from Jan. to April of this year saw an increase in new home construction, not a loss as the rest of the country is still experiencing. You still arguing that Arizona and Phoenix are not traditionally popular high growth areas?

Any of them and yet you can't show ONE! Unemployment is NOT computed mostly from unemployment claims.

That is correct.

Once again, that is correct.

Yes, but you didn't buy it 2 year ago when it was worth $75K more than it is now and many people did and are now stuck with negative equity and high mortgage payments.

You are kidding, right?!?!?! Just about every financial agency has made this claim.