Exxon Mobile baby, Just a mere 100 shares ~8800 buck sell covered calls on them each month net ~300 bucks...average persons gas paid for.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
i don't know how a young family gets ahead these days
- Thread starter queenlives
- Start date
Exxon Mobile baby, Just a mere 100 shares ~8800 buck sell covered calls on them each month net ~300 bucks...average persons gas paid for.
1. Check Big Oil MARGINS and compare them to other public companies
2. Bush = Higher gas prices
3. Check oil speculators
4. Oil is traded as a comodity
5. As I recall, the CEO's of major oil companies have testified before Congress
6. Ask the farmers why the prices of corn, wheat, soy beans, etc. have gone off the charts.
I'm curious, have other public companies appeared before congress regarding their record profit margins? So there are no Stocks to be purchased in oil, only commodities? When these oil company CEO's appeared before congress to testify, what did they say? Obviously from the sarcastic and condescending (though I'm so very used to that here on prime) manner in which people have replied to my post, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about, and shouldn't speak my mind about oil prices or question why they are at record highs (and I should probably sell my NSX and stop posting on prime). Therefore, under this logic, whoever in congress requested that the aforementioned CEO's testify, are also clueless and have no right to question the higher oil costs.
No of course not...Just like I can't blame him solely for lackluster government response of Katrina, lying to us about the justification for the Iraq invasion. No Bush can't be TOTALLY blamed for any of those things. That is obvious and I don't recall saying Bush was SOLELY responsible. I simply stated that since he has taken office, gas prices have risen very high in costs. The statement makes a very subtle implication that Bush may be partly to blame, just as BIG OIL. I fail to understand why some people feel the need to come to his rescue and TOTALLY absolve him from ANY responsibility whatsoever.
First, thank you for that opener. Forgive me for failing to meet you high intellectual expectations as a Prime member. Furthermore, the statement that oil companies have ZERO bearing on oil prices, confuses me. Forgive my dumb dumb brain. Perhaps you can explain it to me as a fellow NSXer and not as someone talking down to another person, i.e. condescension. Who then, decides the cost of oil? If Oil companies have ZERO say in putting a price on what they sell, then one would assume that they are in an extremely high risk business. What if this mystery person or thing, that decides the price of oil, goes well below the profit margin. Well, wouldn't that be disastrous for oil companies. I'm guessing (with my dumb dumb brain) that this rarely happens. Therefore, the oil companies have SOME influence, I would think.
Look, just explain this graph to me. Why have I heard nearly a dozen different reasons from various sources explaining the rising cost of oil (including your explanation)?
btw, this graph is missing the last few years, which has MUCH larger increases.
Ah, oodles and oodles of sarcasm and condescension. How loathsome, yet entire unexpected. Always behind computer screens it spews forth. Thankfully never in person.
Ah, oodles and oodles of sarcasm and condescension. How loathsome, yet entire unexpected. Always behind computer screens it spews forth. Thankfully never in person.
I call em like I see em- you can roll your eyes right out of your head for all I care. As for that "you wouldn't say that to my face" remark- I'd tell you the same thing if we were sitting next to each other in a bar. The difference is you probably wouldn't be so prideful that you got your feelings hurt when someone disagrees with you and gives you a little shit about it.
We would probably just continue the conversation, and sooner or later you would find something you could give me some shit about-
That is the way it works in person
Relax.
P
I'm curious, have other public companies appeared before congress regarding their record profit margins? So there are no Stocks to be purchased in oil, only commodities? When these oil company CEO's appeared before congress to testify, what did they say? Obviously from the sarcastic and condescending (though I'm so very used to that here on prime) manner in which people have replied to my post, I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about, and shouldn't speak my mind about oil prices or question why they are at record highs (and I should probably sell my NSX and stop posting on prime). Therefore, under this logic, whoever in congress requested that the aforementioned CEO's testify, are also clueless and have no right to question the higher oil costs.
No of course not...Just like I can't blame him solely for lackluster government response of Katrina, lying to us about the justification for the Iraq invasion. No Bush can't be TOTALLY blamed for any of those things. That is obvious and I don't recall saying Bush was SOLELY responsible. I simply stated that since he has taken office, gas prices have risen very high in costs. The statement makes a very subtle implication that Bush may be partly to blame, just as BIG OIL. I fail to understand why some people feel the need to come to his rescue and TOTALLY absolve him from ANY responsibility whatsoever.
First, thank you for that opener. Forgive me for failing to meet you high intellectual expectations as a Prime member. Furthermore, the statement that oil companies have ZERO bearing on oil prices, confuses me. Forgive my dumb dumb brain. Perhaps you can explain it to me as a fellow NSXer and not as someone talking down to another person, i.e. condescension. Who then, decides the cost of oil? If Oil companies have ZERO say in putting a price on what they sell, then one would assume that they are in an extremely high risk business. What if this mystery person or thing, that decides the price of oil, goes well below the profit margin. Well, wouldn't that be disastrous for oil companies. I'm guessing (with my dumb dumb brain) that this rarely happens. Therefore, the oil companies have SOME influence, I would think.
Look, just explain this graph to me. Why have I heard nearly a dozen different reasons from various sources explaining the rising cost of oil (including your explanation)?
btw, this graph is missing the last few years, which has MUCH larger increases.
Ah, oodles and oodles of sarcasm and condescension. How loathsome, yet entire unexpected. Always behind computer screens it spews forth. Thankfully never in person.
Really? I'll be very happy to meet you for lunch or dinner. Tell you what, I'll meet you anywhere in the United States, or any where in the world if you choose, with any third party person that we decide, to debate our differences. We'll decide who the independent third party would be and where we'll meet. I am open to any where in the world at any time. The loser pays ALL expenses. Ready for that? Let's make it more interesting, let's have a "jury" of six or twelve, I don't care, you choose and we'll publish all of this on Prime. Shut up or put up. Ready? This is going to be a great thread. Would perfer international locations. Up for that? Let's have Prime members help determine terms.
1st - I have no interest in debating with someone like you. You display immaturity with your sarcasm.
2nd - This isn't a competition. I can accept when I am wrong and readily admit when I don't understand something. However, I don't appreciate your tone.
Finally, you would NOT speak to me in that manner face to face. I would wager you would talk to me with RESPECT. That is the key word here. This has nothing to do with PRIDE. You speak to me with respect. Don't talk down to me, don't insult me, don't condescend me with your sarcasm.
If you feel you are right and I am wrong, then we have a difference in opinion. However, it seems far too common for wealthy arrogant NSX owners such as yourself insulting others who do not have the same opinion as you.
If you feel the need to meet with me, You can pay ALL the expenses yourself. This is simply not worth my time or money. I'll be here waiting for you. If you can actually speak to me man to man and spare me the arrogant condescension, I'll happily pay the bill for the food and drink (assuming you don't drink me out the bank). Should you choose to speak down to me, insult me, or engage in the stereotypical rich man condescension, it would be wise to do so BEFORE I start drinking
Till it pops out of my bloody head
2nd - This isn't a competition. I can accept when I am wrong and readily admit when I don't understand something. However, I don't appreciate your tone.
Finally, you would NOT speak to me in that manner face to face. I would wager you would talk to me with RESPECT. That is the key word here. This has nothing to do with PRIDE. You speak to me with respect. Don't talk down to me, don't insult me, don't condescend me with your sarcasm.
If you feel you are right and I am wrong, then we have a difference in opinion. However, it seems far too common for wealthy arrogant NSX owners such as yourself insulting others who do not have the same opinion as you.
If you feel the need to meet with me, You can pay ALL the expenses yourself. This is simply not worth my time or money. I'll be here waiting for you. If you can actually speak to me man to man and spare me the arrogant condescension, I'll happily pay the bill for the food and drink (assuming you don't drink me out the bank). Should you choose to speak down to me, insult me, or engage in the stereotypical rich man condescension, it would be wise to do so BEFORE I start drinking
Till it pops out of my bloody head
We eat very healthy and our food budget (2 adults + 1-year-old) is something like $500/month...and $100 of that is for eating out (2-3 times).
A good portion of the recent increases in food pricing (especially things that are made from corn or from animals fed corn, or that are substitutes for those) have to do with the stupid government subsidies for ethanol (cover story of April 14th Time is the best I've seen such covered by anything resembling the mainstream press, in case you don't think the subsidies are stupid).
Speaking of gas prices, the best argument I've heard RE what is the biggest contributing factor was the war (risk premium). Like the war or not, gas prices are just one of many ways we're paying for this war in a literal sense. I also think that oil execs testifying before congress means nothing either way (says they're evil or that they're off the hook). Members of congress are trying to look good in an election year (or in general) and for some reason this is a means to look like they care about the issue while they're screwing up the issue 6 ways from Sunday (and don't realize it, so they do the same stupid things to try to fix what are consequences of their intervention before and mess it up further).
Honestly, as a household who worked hard and were very frugal and saved a lot of money while dual-income (before kid)...the two things that scare me most are government spending and our monetary policy (the two are closely knit). The fed's recent actions (lowering of interest rates) and Congress's + Executive's spending levels (with or without war) are great examples of "they do the same stupid things to try to fix what are consequences of their intervention before and mess it up further." In the long term the resulting inflation and debt burden are really going to hurt.
A good portion of the recent increases in food pricing (especially things that are made from corn or from animals fed corn, or that are substitutes for those) have to do with the stupid government subsidies for ethanol (cover story of April 14th Time is the best I've seen such covered by anything resembling the mainstream press, in case you don't think the subsidies are stupid).
Speaking of gas prices, the best argument I've heard RE what is the biggest contributing factor was the war (risk premium). Like the war or not, gas prices are just one of many ways we're paying for this war in a literal sense. I also think that oil execs testifying before congress means nothing either way (says they're evil or that they're off the hook). Members of congress are trying to look good in an election year (or in general) and for some reason this is a means to look like they care about the issue while they're screwing up the issue 6 ways from Sunday (and don't realize it, so they do the same stupid things to try to fix what are consequences of their intervention before and mess it up further).
Honestly, as a household who worked hard and were very frugal and saved a lot of money while dual-income (before kid)...the two things that scare me most are government spending and our monetary policy (the two are closely knit). The fed's recent actions (lowering of interest rates) and Congress's + Executive's spending levels (with or without war) are great examples of "they do the same stupid things to try to fix what are consequences of their intervention before and mess it up further." In the long term the resulting inflation and debt burden are really going to hurt.
First, thank you for that opener. Forgive me for failing to meet you high intellectual expectations as a Prime member. Furthermore, the statement that oil companies have ZERO bearing on oil prices, confuses me. Forgive my dumb dumb brain. Perhaps you can explain it to me as a fellow NSXer and not as someone talking down to another person, i.e. condescension. Who then, decides the cost of oil? If Oil companies have ZERO say in putting a price on what they sell, then one would assume that they are in an extremely high risk business. What if this mystery person or thing, that decides the price of oil, goes well below the profit margin. Well, wouldn't that be disastrous for oil companies. I'm guessing (with my dumb dumb brain) that this rarely happens. Therefore, the oil companies have SOME influence, I would think.
Look, just explain this graph to me. Why have I heard nearly a dozen different reasons from various sources explaining the rising cost of oil (including your explanation)?
btw, this graph is missing the last few years, which has MUCH larger increases.
Ah, oodles and oodles of sarcasm and condescension. How loathsome, yet entire unexpected. Always behind computer screens it spews forth. Thankfully never in person.
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything pal. I have little doubt you are an intelligent guy and I'm sure you know a lot more about certain topics than I do. I'd also bet that if I said something completely inaccurate and misguided you'd consider it almost your duty to correct me. Swap places, and we are there!
There is no reason to be angry at oil firms. If you truly are bothered by oil prices, you should thank me for giving you better insight in to the real issue. If I was in your position I'd want the same thing. On prime, the majority of us have some sort of business back ground. That's the only reason I even posted, if it was on some random forum I'd probably save my breath.
I'll go piece by piece and see if I can clarify some issues for you.
First-why oil firms themselves have almost zero bearing [I'd argue so little it's statistically insignificant] on the price of crude/oil.
The price is based on the supply of oil and the demand for oil as I mentioned earlier. In all reality no one can set the price of oil, but some actors can have some effect. For instance, OPEC is a group of nations that decides how much production they want to supply the world. Actors from the middle east to russia to south america perform similar functions.
There are also more 'open' sources such as in Texas and some parts of Canada as well as the Gulf of Mexico. Here firms do a cost benefit analysis and decide if it's worth the risk to try to drill. In fact, it's an extremely high risk business. My uncle is a geophysicist and I've learned a lot from him as well, he analyzes the tests/data to ultimately decide if a reserve justifies the expenses [huge might I add] of attempting to drill for it.
So on the supply side you have a group of regular firms ["big oil"], OPEC, and other nations all providing the supply [some "big oil" firms also drill for these same nations but that's irrelevant].
The tricky side is the demand side. There are literally billions of actors deciding this one. Because of this, crude's value fluctuates on a daily basis as people try their best [keep it simple] to gauge how much it's worth. Entire countries of people want more oil than before, sometimes 10 times as much. And they have the wallet to pay for it now.
Same/controlled supply with increasing demand. Only 100 gallons of milk per city but now every city has twice as many people going after the same milk. Milk price goes up, hanging the rancher or killing the delivery truck guy won't change that. If the rancher puts milk at 100$ a gallon, it has no bearing on its value*. The price* is meaningless because unless supply=demand, the milk won't sell. If he puts it at .01 per gallon, it'll also be meaningless because people will buy the milk only to resell it at the market price. The same would be done with gas if someone could access it for .50$ a gallon wouldn't it? The value remains the same. Oil companies' only part in this equation is deciding whether or not to drill more, but that's a very very minute part of the equation and trust me, if they thought it was profitable they would [and do].
The graphs do not support your argument. They just say that demand has outstripped supply. If you put up corn, soy beans, wheat, it's all going up as well. In fact, most are going up FASTER than oil. I know, I've been trading them. Read the agricultural story several times and go do some research on it if you don't believe it, research as you've done is important.
I have a BA in Economics from Univ of TX, minor in chinese and have studied a lot of the growth/resource absorption/export->import reversals in growing nations specifically asian ones, have worked for a fairly large oil service firm, and currently work in the business of valuing asset classes and trying to make a buck off the imbalances. Here to help with the little expertise I have on a few areas.
Wonderful, thank you! This is the conversation I prefer. Now, I'm still a little confused, I apologize, I'm more a "hands-on" kinda guy when understanding things primarily, then visually second. The cost of oil is proportional to supply and demand. I know that the demand for oil had increased dramatically from areas like Asia; so has cost gone up because demand has exceeded supply? Is part of this influenced by what's going on with the consolidation of power and oil ownership in Russia?
What about those that say the oil price increase has been influenced by the war in Iraq, uncertainty of supply in the future, middle eastern countries charging more for oil, etc. etc. As I said before, I've heard nearly a dozen different reasons for the oil price increase, including conspiracies that involve Bush.
In a recent press conference, a reporter asked Bush about his opinion regarding sources that say that gas will reach $4 a gallon this year. Bush reacted with surprise. This won the ire of many people as they felt Bush should know about this already; while others feel Bush was fully aware of it, and just fiend surprise at this info. To me, the fact that Bush says that our economy is strong and there is no need to be concerned about inflation, depression, etc. makes me wonder how much he is lying to us. Makes me feel as though "big oil" is getting rich due to some background influence.
I understand the laws of supply and demand; I guess it's still hard for me to grasp that there is an infinitesimal amount of influence via oil companies on the price of oil. However, the MILK analogy makes things clearer. So when the Oil CEOs appeared before congress, did they give a similar explanation as you did? Were these CEO's called before congress just as a show to appease the public outcry against rising oil prices?
What about those that say the oil price increase has been influenced by the war in Iraq, uncertainty of supply in the future, middle eastern countries charging more for oil, etc. etc. As I said before, I've heard nearly a dozen different reasons for the oil price increase, including conspiracies that involve Bush.
In a recent press conference, a reporter asked Bush about his opinion regarding sources that say that gas will reach $4 a gallon this year. Bush reacted with surprise. This won the ire of many people as they felt Bush should know about this already; while others feel Bush was fully aware of it, and just fiend surprise at this info. To me, the fact that Bush says that our economy is strong and there is no need to be concerned about inflation, depression, etc. makes me wonder how much he is lying to us. Makes me feel as though "big oil" is getting rich due to some background influence.
I understand the laws of supply and demand; I guess it's still hard for me to grasp that there is an infinitesimal amount of influence via oil companies on the price of oil. However, the MILK analogy makes things clearer. So when the Oil CEOs appeared before congress, did they give a similar explanation as you did? Were these CEO's called before congress just as a show to appease the public outcry against rising oil prices?
Regarding Russia, I'd say it's a little bit more of the other way around. However I have not studied this in much detail and there are others on the board that actually do business there if I'm not mistaken.
Uncertainty does cause price adjustments, they effect the supply side usually. Uncertainty can be a real factor but fundamentals drive asset prices 99.9% of the time over the longer term [years not days]. We could talk about speculation at the NYMEX ect. but that's a whole different topic if you want to go there. Big corrections come after prolonged over valuations, such as in the current housing market.
I've briefly read various conspiracies etc. but in all honesty you probably have more than I. Most conspiracies are derived by a party that believes it can use propaganda to mold the masses or is derived from the masses to explain what they don't understand.
You are correct on the Asian example. Most of these powerhouse countries import a large portion their natural resources at this point, even for those that have them 'readily' available. China for instance used to be a big exporter [like 10 years ago, not the 1940's], now they import those same resources. They do still have a good coal supply as does the U.S. [nat gas as well]. We could also break open alaska but choose not to.
Remember that GW is just a man. I don't think he'd claim to remotely be an expert in any of the fields we have been discussing-he doesn't need to be because it's more efficient for him to just get someone to help him understand. He has information we don't, and often vice-versa if you know a particular area very well yourself.
In politics, always look on the flip side. If GW had said, "oh yea, $4 a gallon is coming undoubtedly", what do you think would have occurred? Let me tell you, NYT's lead story "BUSH CASUALLY EXPECTS $4 GAS IS IMMINENT WITH NO PLAN TO SAVE STARVING AMERICANS!" He didn't really have a choice in the matter.
Bush is just a figure head balancing a lot of variables us outside that realm cannot fathom. He has to say every single sentence knowing the ENTIRE WORLD is watching his every mis pronunciation, much less anything of substance. He's the CEO of america, or at least that's what americans have made presidents out to be [when the economy is bad]. He's going to put a positive spin on it because frankly he's not a moron and would be to do otherwise. Is inflation a real concern? I'd say so but I can fully understand opposing arguments. Is the economy completely in the dumpster? Unemployment will probably peak at 6% and GDP will be flat, but for a long over due recession that is remarkable.
I didn't watch the hearings, but my understanding is it was just that-public outcry. I'm sure the congressmen were getting thousands of letters every month whining about it and they were justly afraid of getting kicked out of office, as idiotic as the whole thing is/was. If you want to nail some dishonest guys just go talk to country wide's big man among others.
If there is anything to be sure of, it's that "big oil" [I honestly don't even know what this means entirely] wants world growth to be as healthy as possible-that you can take to the bank and sleep soundly with.
That's my economics side talking gibberish for fun, a more efficient answer would be->
gas diesel
Florida 51.6 53.4 Sales tax 11.6. 4 cpg excise tax. 2.2 cpg environmental inspection.
What you just read is the amount of taxes per gallon in your area you pay. Behind crude prices taxes are the most expensive addition. You can try to curtail the growth of billions of people and thousands of industries in china, india, korea, brazil, etc. or go throw some eggs at your congressman's house and tell him to lower the taxes.
Seriously- crank back the sensitivity a bit.
I am going to stick with the truth here- if you said something about Bush being in cahoots with Big Oil to screw the common man, and we were sitting in a bar I'd pretty much give you some shit. If you got all defensive like this- I'd probably give you even more shit.
The difference is- we would be face to face, and you would see that I am really a kind person with a sense of humor, and I don't mean you any harm, or disrespect with my sarcasm- just a laugh, even if it is at your expense it isn't really hurtful, disrespectful, or talking down to you- it is giving you a little ribbing. Listen to any stand up comedy as reference- a lot of it is based on observational sarcasm.
As for being "disrespectful" towards you- both my posts are still there- Show me where I specifically picked you out of the crowd and insulted you.
I didn't.
Now if I posted "BladesNSX is a moron, idiot ect ect ect..." that would be something else- but I didn't post that, and I don't think that. I didn't even reference you specifically in my sarcastic post- just the line of thought you had posted earlier. You took it personally, and in the final analysis I think you need to realize that it wasn't personal, and you are over reacting
Take it easy
P
You can say that again!
Of course I'm not a stock spec guy, just don't have the time
I vote for Monaco, this summer! I'll lead the jury - all expenses paid, please!
The oil business is a quasi Monopoly - an Oligopoly at best. Who sets the prices? Well, there's this little known group of Zionists called "OPEC" (I'm sure the O stands to "Oppress" :wink:
C'mon, you're gonna believe what you want to believe and even when you do research, you'll dismiss evidence that contradicts you as "irrational stuff written by people who don't know"
I understand its very American to believe in the Invisible Hand - the problem is sometimes its moved ever so slightly by people that are wearing the emperor's new clothes - you can't close your eyes and assume its all invisible.
Perhaps I'm a cynic in your eyes, but I assume eveything in the world happens for two reasons:
1) Motivated self-interest
2) Dogmatic following instincts
Please, take me to Monaco (I have friends there to stay with) and I won't bring my Dog(ma):wink:
There is one other point to make - and I studied Economics in school too - the Derivatives market is outside the traditional economic modeling paradigm.
I believe it is forcing up prices of world commodities due to speculation alone - not demand!
If everybody wants oil futures then the price goes up - just like the 100L of milk - the difference is everybody buying the milk wants to drink it - everyone buying the oil wants to sell it and make money.
Although derivatives work on a long and short, ultimately demand for derivatives and market volatility associated with the demand for them causes upward pressure on price - by definition.
Conclusion?
1) Is big oil profiting from higher prices? You bet, if you make a 5% margin wouldn't you rather sell at $200 vs $100 for the same 5% margin?
2) Are they the only one benefitting? No, SteveNY just bough a Ferrari and is evil - but not as evil as all the Big Banks who are trading Derivatives (Commodities) and thus driving the commodity prices up while not actually planning consumption models on the back end (instead they just pass the prices on to consumers)
Actually, its the perfect pyramid scheme, since you can't do without butter, even if it double in price you can afford it, the problem is the classic economic paradigm, when the government is spending more on guns and the people are spending more on butter - someone has to inject capital into the equation since Society can't afford both.
Can we still go to Monaco? Please? I can get us into Jimmy's no problem!
I believe it is forcing up prices of world commodities due to speculation alone - not demand!
If everybody wants oil futures then the price goes up - just like the 100L of milk - the difference is everybody buying the milk wants to drink it - everyone buying the oil wants to sell it and make money.
Although derivatives work on a long and short, ultimately demand for derivatives and market volatility associated with the demand for them causes upward pressure on price - by definition.
Conclusion?
1) Is big oil profiting from higher prices? You bet, if you make a 5% margin wouldn't you rather sell at $200 vs $100 for the same 5% margin?
2) Are they the only one benefitting? No, SteveNY just bough a Ferrari and is evil - but not as evil as all the Big Banks who are trading Derivatives (Commodities) and thus driving the commodity prices up while not actually planning consumption models on the back end (instead they just pass the prices on to consumers)
Actually, its the perfect pyramid scheme, since you can't do without butter, even if it double in price you can afford it, the problem is the classic economic paradigm, when the government is spending more on guns and the people are spending more on butter - someone has to inject capital into the equation since Society can't afford both.
Can we still go to Monaco? Please? I can get us into Jimmy's no problem!
wow, all this venom from a $6 box of cereal.
it seems a real shame to me that so many threads on prime result in projectile-vomiting between members as this one has.
:frown:
it seems a real shame to me that so many threads on prime result in projectile-vomiting between members as this one has.
:frown:
It's all just conversation. In any crowd you will have people who disagree on different points. Some folks are really sensitive, while others are not.
It is the way of the world.
As for the subject at hand- I am going to be a father this year and I must tell you that I am adapting my plans to adjust for the expense. More importantly I am looking waaaay down the line and adjusting priorities accordingly.
For one example: I WAS looking to buy a new car this year- but, with baby on the way, we will probably put that off for a little while, and when we do buy a new vehicle, it probably won't be what I had been thinking about. For now I am putting the cash away to cover our upcoming medical expenses.
Shannon is adapting her career so she can have more time at home. This means we will have to alter our lifestyle a bit to compensate for the lost income. With rising prices of food, fuel, and the other logisitcal needs the belt tightening is a little more extreme, but nothing we can't manage if we are sensible, and practical with our choices.
So to answer the question posed by the thread- I think a young family can get ahead by being realistic about the expenses, and planning accordingly. I guess we will see if I am right late this fall.
Well I don't know if you're a cynic or just xenophobic. That's for you to decide.:wink:
I guess my attitude is somewhat tempered with my research as well as my practical experience living and working in the Gulf for ADIC (Arab Development Investment Corporation) in Abu Dhabi. You know, those oil guys. Those OPEC members.:biggrin:
You're correct. It's a monopoly or an oligopoly at best. Just ask those guys at...
Saudi Arabian Oil Company, Petroleos Mexicanos, Petroleos de Venezuela, China National Petroleum, BP Amoco, Exxon/Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Nigerian National Oil Company, Kuwait Petroleum, Chevron/Texaco, Conoco Philips, Occidental, Amarada Hess, Petrobras, Apache, Pemex, or any of the other two hundred oil companies.
When I worked there I even got to see those conference calls where they would all get together and decide what the price of oil was going to be that day and how they would bounce it around during the day. Those Nigerian guys were a hoot. They were always talking about taking some oil workers hostage just to add some flavor to the market and really getting people screwed up. Every once in a while they would go out and blow up some stupid pipe line just to goof around.
I remember that big meeting they had about getting China and India on board with them. You probably heard about that in your research. It was the one about getting those poor stupid bastards to start using more of their oil. They even got those people in China, the ones that used to export oil, to start importing the stuff.
Thanks for the insight.:biggrin:
I actualy find it fascinating to see where threads like yours go.Besides most of the guys ranting on about this and that desperately trying to prove thier points don't have too many people who will listen to them,and respond in real life:wink: . how many of thier drinking buds want to hear about oil price graphs , geopolitical confabulations and the like.
Lol. My wife starts tuning me out when I go on a religious/political/racial tirade at home:biggrin:
I've been wondering the same thing since house prices went up a few years ago.
When I first started out as a single guy in the real world, I bought a decent average sized house and it wasn't a big deal. Now my average size house has DOUBLED in price. I don't see how a single person could afford to buy a house now days. The starter homes are expensive!
When I first started out as a single guy in the real world, I bought a decent average sized house and it wasn't a big deal. Now my average size house has DOUBLED in price. I don't see how a single person could afford to buy a house now days. The starter homes are expensive!
Went grocery shopping yesterday.... I paid 4 for three green peppers. I'm writing to the congress!
that oil co. investment idea sounds good. I know nothing about investing yet but I think I might get into that. Thanks for the clue Steven--y!
that oil co. investment idea sounds good. I know nothing about investing yet but I think I might get into that. Thanks for the clue Steven--y!
Point well taken Hal. I am sorry if I offended anyone.:frown:
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
appreciated, but no apologies necessary, doug.
while i was out on my bike ride this morning, i was thinking through the feedback on my last comment (in particular, doc's) and realized (doh!) we all participate in prime for a variety of reasons - some shared, some not - and we're all free to vote with our feet.
We are just living beyond our means, and "society" is borrowing too much to finance decadent lifestyles. Have you ever seen an 8 year old in Africa throwing away bread crust because it was good hard? What about throwing away unfinished beverages? Even throwing away ice!
The journey of a thousand miles start with a single step, and movement of a society begins with the individual. But I guess we don't live in utopia.
The journey of a thousand miles start with a single step, and movement of a society begins with the individual. But I guess we don't live in utopia.
"The starter homes are expensive"
Houses have also gotten bigger! (and closer together)
Ave family home in the 50's / 60's was around what? 1000-1500 sq ft?
Now everyone wants 2500-3500+sq ft.
With utility bills to match.
Still believe its a cultural change. And the willingness to accept greater dept.
Its now viewed as the norm. Even if its for food & esentials.
This credit bubble has been predictable for quite a while.
3-4 yrs ago I brought it up with my financial advisor.
His thoughts were to just ride it out, and possibly buy more property
if things get back to more or less normal levels.
Not there yet, but getting closer.
Things go in cycles, the longer your around the easier it is to see.
Houses have also gotten bigger! (and closer together)
Ave family home in the 50's / 60's was around what? 1000-1500 sq ft?
Now everyone wants 2500-3500+sq ft.
With utility bills to match.
Still believe its a cultural change. And the willingness to accept greater dept.
Its now viewed as the norm. Even if its for food & esentials.
This credit bubble has been predictable for quite a while.
3-4 yrs ago I brought it up with my financial advisor.
His thoughts were to just ride it out, and possibly buy more property
if things get back to more or less normal levels.
Not there yet, but getting closer.
Things go in cycles, the longer your around the easier it is to see.
if you guys have an ikea around they have breakfast for 99 cents, which includes eggs, potatoes, bacon and coffee. for a dollar more you can get french toast sticks or cinnabon.