OT:Give credit where it's due

And the price is that high because of high world-wide demand and limited production capacity.

This is not Bush's fault.

Ditto.

Not Bush's fault. Housing prices started to rise when Clinton was President. And Clinton did nothing to prevent predatory lending. Nor did the US Congress during the last few years, even when Democrats where in charge of the House.

And a lot of those bad decisions were caused by ordinary people, like the decision to buy a house one couldn't afford, the decision to buy a huge truck that gets 10 mpg, and the decision to buy those toys the kid didn't need on credit that one can't afford.

So give credit where credit is do. And Bush doesn't deserve credit for the housing bubble nor for the high oil prices.

However, now is the time for Bush to earn credit for dealing with the situation but good leadership.

Jeff

To be fair, GW Bush isn't really responsible for the housing bubble.

National debt/GDP ratio:

Notice that it declined under only one Republican president, Eisenhower.

80% of the US national debt was incurred during the Reagan, Bush, and GW Bush administrations Way to go, self-professed fiscal conservatives.

It's all in the numbers, lots of people are hanging because of off book accounting, Enron was nothing compared to what we are going to see. Mark to market? more like mark to fantasy. GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports - imports), or, GDP = C + I + G + (X-M)

You must still believe in Santa Claus and the easter bunny.

Yes, demand has increased. But, it has NOT increased in proportion to the prices increases of the last couple of years. Much of the increase is simply due to speculative fears. Oil is one commodity that should not be traded in by speculators who have absolutely no connection to the oil industry.

That's not Bush's fault, at least no directly. But, his foolishness DID contribute to a situation that speculators use to make money. Remember, too, that the people who facilitate the trades for speculators make money regardless of who wins or loses.

So, what you're saying, is that the oil industry itself is not setting the price?

Oil biz not involved at all? Of course not. But, they are affected by the actions of speculators who are in no way connected with the oil business. No different than you, as an individual investor being affected by the actions of mutual fund managers. Everyone in the game has an effect.

My beef with the process is nicely illustrated by a line from a news story back in 2003. To paraphrase, "oil rose x amount per barrel today, on fears of renewed violence in Baghdad". Pardon me? Renewed violence in a city that has nothing to do with oil production?

Excuse me, but this sounds a bit like backpeddling. I think your original statement holds better. Personally, I don't think the oil companies are involved in the price fluctuations due to speculation.

On the other hand, they're certainly not going to do anything to stop it either.

At least in theory, the oil companies' raw material cost reflects the fluctuations we hear about on the news. So, they can be seen to some extent as innocent parties in all this. No sane person expects them to sell product at a loss. Their own traders may be as emotionally driven as those outside the industry, but hopefully, lesser so than those outside the oil biz. Oil companies hedge as best they can, like any well run business. But, there are limits to successful hedging.

I'm curious if it's possible to get an estimate of what percentage of oil gambling is done by players vs. actual people in the oil biz. Stay tuned. This could take days or months. First stop: My old manager from my broker days. He's older than dirt, and may be able to identify some people to talk to.

Actually per barrel gas is cheap. Problem is that Bush ruined the value of the dollar so we have to spend a ton of dollars for a barrel of oil. It is indeed Bush's fault.

My chief complaint is the price fluctuation on gas ALREADY in the storage tanks. That fuel was refined from crude purchased before the price increase. Crude goes up, the gas in the ground goes up? Not kosher.

THAT is what Congress should target. It's nothing more than gouging.

Enron comes to mind. I remember people like you and me shoveling their life savings into companies that were on the upswing, with no thought of diversification. Idiots like that deserve to lose whether it's due to greed or stupidity.

Which idiots? The crooks at the top or the investors?

I don't recall the situation with the investors. Was the problem that they had no other choices in their 401k plan other than company stock? Or, they had choices, but didn't use them properly? The first situation seems unlikely. It's a deadly fiduciary liability for any company.

Some Enron investors, not of the 401K variety (employees), saw Enron and California's power crisis as a means of making a fast kill.

I know personally of at least two people who plowed nearly their entire efforts into Enron, and losing it all.

Likewise, when gas prices shot up a few years ago, some greedy SOB in San Diego county wrote in the paper that he would "...hope it gas goes up to five bucks a gallon. I own stock in Chevron, etc...." When gas dropped down for a while he lost quite a bit of money.

People who trade in misery, financial or otherwise, and hope that misery increases, deserve their fate. From the top to the bottom.

Lets hope then, that the Bush administration gets what it deserves.

I'm guessing that the majority of investors were involved in 401k's that were invested by their employers. If memory serves, one of the first to caution (and bail out) of Enron was the fund for employee's of the state of California. I'm no expert on finance but I *do* know what the execs at Enron were and what they were doing (as well as who they brought to power).

I just flinch when on one hand a person endlessly touts supply side economics which endorses the market and encourages blind faith in "the invisible hand" and then blames the "idiot" investor when it doesn't work out.

Similar to blaming the buyers of homes that got caught up in tricky financing and had to default on loans. Were there *some* that tried to capitolize on a market that continued to inflate? Of course. At least on *their* part it was above board and legal.

BTW, I understand that there may be some class action lawsuits filed on behalf of those who feel they were victimized by unscrupulous lenders. We are *far* from the end of the economic side effects on this one IMO.

Now, about handing Social Security over to Wall Street...

Reminds me of a company I courted as an investment customer, not long after October 19, 1987. The owner kept telling me he had the 401k set up really nice: Nothing but CDs available to his employees. Bad idea. The employees finally took him to court and straightened the problem out. The guy only understood one kind of risk, and ignored all the other kinds.

The 401k that my better half has, offers the employees a variety of risks vs return options. For most, its like throwing darts. The just shrug, take a stab and hope for the best.

Your comments reminded me of a story from a few years back. I wouldn't have noticed it but we were putting in a new block wall and all the guys doing the work were originally from the island of Tonga.

A former employee of Bank of America by the name of Jesse Bogdonoff (had to Google a bit for that) got the tiny island to trust him with their treasury which had no investments at all if I remember correctly.

According to a lawsuit file on behalf of Tonga, "as a result of Bogdonoff's negligence, the Tonga Trust Fund (which he set up) lost an amount that, at minimum, exceeds $24.5 million."

Dumbshit.

And please tell us what Bush did to ruin the value of the dollar.

Jeff