'Disturbing' revelations in probe of possible gas price manipulation

[RamboLiberal]

Source: USA Today

An investigation into possible manipulation of gasoline prices has uncovered "disturbing'' revelations, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"There are a couple things that … are disturbing,'' Holder said, declining to elaborate.

He indicated the information would be reviewed by a fraud task force formed last week.



Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/04/disturbing-revelations-in-probe-of-possible-gas-price-manipulation/1

---

Charge & prosecute!

[cally]

1. I hope they find enough information to prosecute.

For years, it's rumored that gas prices rise before an election when a Democrat is in office and fall for a Republican. I hope they prove it.

[Demeter]

57. That's not the game plan, at all

Holder makes a big public stink, Obama jawbones the gas prices down for the summer, the wars blow up, and that's all she wrote.

They really still think they can swing elections on window-dressing. After all, it worked in 2008.

[Kablooie]

78. You're probably right.

Just like Obama has suddenly become a Democrat again temporarily so he can win the election.

[glinda]

69. Pharma stock prices rose before Bush got in so....

[fasttense]

83. Here is some information that may help them out.

It's a bubble.

Ravi Batra predicted this bubble when the recession 1st hit. Since we have rescued the uber rich, they have to find a place to park all their unnecessary money. (They don't need to spend it, they have everything they need or want and they certainly are not creating jobs.) Since the CDOs and other mortgage backed crap is known to be worthless, they need something solid and real. So, speculators are buying up gold, oil and other commodities. Simply put, with the help of the bailout, they are re-inflating the bubble in commodities and oil is number 1.

This was posted by another DUer:

"“That’s how we have developed a massive glut of 677 million barrels worth of contracts in the front four months on the NYMEX and, come rollover day – that will be the amount of barrels ‘on order’ for the front 3 months, unless a lot barrels get dumped at market prices fast.

“Keep in mind that the entire United States uses ‘just’ 18M barrels of oil a day, so 677M barrels is a 37-day supply of oil. But, we also make 9M barrels of our own oil and import ‘just’ 9M barrels per day, and 5M barrels of that is from Canada and Mexico who, last I heard, aren’t even having revolutions.

“So, ignoring North Sea oil, Brazil and Venezuela, and lumping Africa in with OPEC, we are importing 3Mbd from unreliable sources and there is a 225-day supply under contract for delivery at the current price, or cheaper, plus we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve that holds another 727 million barrels (full) plus 370M barrels of commercial storage in the U.S. (also full) which is another 365.6 days of marginal oil already here in storage in addition to the 225 days under contract for delivery.“

These contracts for oil outnumber their actual delivery, a sign of speculation and market manipulation, as oil companies win government authorizations for wells but then don’t open them for exploration or exploitation.

It’s all a game of manipulating oil supply to keep prices up. And no one seems to be regulating it."

There is so much oil out there, they can no longer store it in the US.

The complete piece is at: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/041911a.html

[Newsjock]

2. Disgorge 100% of the illegal profits

Right into the U.S. Treasury. That's the only remedy that will achieve anything.

Ordering them to "lower prices" for "a couple of weeks" will have no effect; it's impossible to verify, and they'll just make up for it later.

[Salviati]

28. Actually I'd say more like 500% of the illegal profits...

[Truth2Tell]

67. not enough...

if a multinational oil co. is found to be illegally manipulating fuel prices, their corporate charter should be yanked, their assets frozen, their executives jailed and their company dismantled. And frankly that's still getting off easy. Capital treason trials would really not be out of line IMO.

[No Elephants]

86. Disgorging alone is no deterrent.

[Drale]

3. PUBLIC HANGINGS!!!

Sorry that might go to far, but people better go to jail for this.

[Snoutport]

11. Well, isn't it treason to undermine the govt. at a time of war? They know their gas price

games will destabilize the american economy and the dollar.

[glinda]

70. Is there a crime for also manipulating public opinion against the Dem. President?

[Hannah Bell]

84. it's been wartime for going on ten years now. i think everyone forgot.

[plumbob]

24. No, public hangings are good. I've lived in the west Texas oilfields my

entire life, and I can assure nothing much short of public hangings, and preferably, en masse, will get the industry's attention.

[Downwinder]

37. Use the empty football stadiums.

[RoccoR5955]

25. Nah, just tar and feathers. n/t

[indy legend]

52. I'd vote for the public hangings

[Jackpine Radical]

105. I don't believe in capital punishment, so I vote partial hangings.

Pull 'em up for a while, let them back down when they turn blue, let 'em breathe for a while, then back up.

Or waterboarding, which accomplishes pretty much the same thing.

[TheMadMonk]

59. Oh the town square could do with a little medieval carpentry.

Stocks and a whipping post at least.

For execution, I'm more partial to what can be done with an old diving suit with a faulty non-return valve.

[anamandujano]

93. Oh goodness, I've wandered into the James Bond forum again!

:)

[Frisbee]

62. The ONLY thing that will come of this is...

the rich will get richer.

[RedCloud]

101. How about PUBIC hangings then?

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. But guillotines have a more classic cachet. nt

[lob1]

4. Holder also said he may look into it more later, but

right now he's too busy busting medical marijuana stores in L.A.

[Newsjock]

7. Don't forget the strongly worded memo, too

That'll show 'em.

[howmad1]

65. How strongly worded will depend upon:

how big a campaign donation will be to the Obama campaign from the oil and gas lobby.

[Myrina]

32. +1 Mil. Sigh.

:( :banghead:

[emilyg]

60. +10

[Truth2Tell]

68. Don't forget the looming menace of internet poker. nt

[DJ13]

5. Well theres a pattern of collusion by the refiners that should be investigated

You would think that so called "independent" refiners would look into increasing their profits during a price spike by increasing production above 80% capacity in their refineries.

But for some reason they all seem to be locked into the same production ratio regardless of ownership.

[louis-t]

17. I thought there weren't many independant refineries left.

I know the big oil companies bought a bunch of indies and shut them down years ago.

[DissedByBush]

22. There aren't that many refineries left at all

There were 300 about 30 years ago, less than half that now

While many have been upgraded, we mostly stopped building refineries in the 70s.

While is true that current environmental and regulatory regulations would make it extremely difficult and expensive to build any new capacity, the truth is that we've had an over-capacity since the late 70s.

So that Repub talking point goes out the window.

[happyslug]

126. But we are refining almost 30 % MORE oil then we did 30 years ago

In 1985 the US was refining 11,583 Thousands barrels a day
In 2011 the US is refining, 15,028 Thousands barrels a day
Thus an increase of 3445 Thousands barrels a day or an increase of over 30%.

For more information see the Energy Information Service (EIA):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGIRIUS2&f=M

Thus, we stop building Refineries 30 years ago, and lost over 1/2 of them, but we are REFINING 30% MORE OIL TODAY THEN WE DID 30 YEARS AGO.

This is like the comment on the number of gasoline stations has dropped in half since the 1970s, but most Gas stations in the 1970 had two pumps, my local Sheetz has 10 times that number. Thus we have 1/2 the gas stations, but we are buying almost 1/3 more gasoline then we did in the 1970s. The same with refineries, we have NOT built any, for it was easier to expand existing one, most near the coast so easy to get tankers to them, them to look for a large location to build a new one, near that same oil tanker terminal.

Lets remember, the US is a net oil importer, thus we get out oil from overseas. The cheapest way to ship oil is by pipeline or tanker. Pipelines do not exist between most of the countries we import oil from, we thus have to look at oil tankers. The Supertankers of the 1970s till today are the most efficient way to ship oil, as the size of the Supertankers limit where they can go. Most stop at off-shore "docks" where the oil from the tanker is loaded (if for the US Market) or unloaded. This must be huge, located away from other ship traffic AND close to refineries. Thus the locations of most refineries are restricted to certain areas along the coast where their can get oil from oil tankers. Most of these sites were purchased in the 1950s, when the US was an oil exporter, but the tankers were a lot smaller, as were the refineries. Both grew, but stayed close to where the two could meet even as the US went from an exported to an importer of oil.

My point is the main reason no new refiners have been built, is for the simple reason, where people would build one (Near where tankers can unload their oil), refineries already exist. Thus if you want to build a new refinery you have to tear down an old refinery. In most cases it is better to just improve the old refinery then to tear it down and build a new one.

I am sick of this "lack of Refineries" stories, yes the number of refineries have dropped in half, but total oil being refined has increased by a 1/3. There is no shortage of refining capacity, which is the only real test.

[Mugweed]

6. That this wasn't seen from Jan 2009 is disturbing

The price of gas here dropped from $4 a gallon to $2 within a 2-week period in October 2008...while the speculation market crashed. That pretty much gave the real story to anyone who was paying attention, honest, and not beholden to Wall Street. So how do we explain the rise now? The fact that it's "disturbing" makes me angry. Someone should have been asking questions at $2.50 per gallon...like, "why isn't it $1.50 per gallon, you billionaires?...and pay some fucking taxes, will ya?"

[Drale]

8. Gas dropped in Chicago from almost 5 dollars to 1.49

at its lowest point in a month period. But that month period coincided with collapse of the economy.

[frylock]

45. fuckin-a!

:mad:

[defendandprotect]

47. +1000% -- Plus the Saudis were also blowing the whistle ... they've been over-supplying they said!!

Saudis don't want to take the blame for this --

but our government couldn't figure it out????

[loudsue]

100. The prices DROPPED after the 2008 election because democrats had the congress and White House

Democrats were talking "alternative energy", and Obama was standing behind that. Then, the republicans get back a majority in the house, and INSTANTLY the prices start to rise (just as they did when bush took over). The oil and gas companies KNOW that republicans will do nothing to stop the rise in prices. No regulation. No nothing. No alternative energy talk.

There can be no price freezes with republicans in charge of at least one house of congress. There will be no regulation of the oil industry with the republicans in at least one house of congress.

Republicans are the oil company's boys, and the country needs to see that.

[jsamuel]

9. if anything nefarious is going on, just realize that this all started in 2002/3

How much money did each and every person using gas in the world get robbed?

[sofa king]

81. Actually, it started in 2000....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june00/gas_3-15.html

... So that Bush and Cheney could get close enough to steal it.

Edit: recall also that the Bush camp strongly opposed using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat the unexplained rise in prices:

http://money.cnn.com/2000/09/21/economy/gore_oil/

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Time to send another strong message.

It works like a charm.:sarcasm: every time.

[tularetom]

12. Boy there's a real shocker

Every American citizen knew there manipulation of gasoline prices going on. A lot of us have been screaming about it for years. But the geniuses in the Justice Dept just discovered it.

Betcha what really happened is somebody in the WH realized the high gas prices could screw up Obama's re election chances and kicked the DOJ in the ass.

Holder has been an underwhelming Attorney General at best. A real disappointment, in many ways.

[RamboLiberal]

13. The whole damn administration has been a real disappointment

in a lot of ways. Maybe the reelection will give them a kick in the pants. I want Obama to win and while it may make me uncomfortable and chewing my nails I don't want them to think they can coast back in to the WH kowtowing to the Repukes and blue dogs. Time they paid attention to those of us who donated and worked for them in 2008.

[lark]

15. I agree, it's been a total disappointment

Yes, I've heard a few good speeches, but when it comes to actions, it's been right wing all the way and damn the left. Now he's running and again it's nice speeches. Let me see him veto a bill dismemebering Medicare, let me see him veto a bill that lowers taxes on millionaires and raises them on the poorest workers. I keep waiting and waiting.

[bertman]

31. Thanks, tularetom. You nailed it. nt

[davidwparker]

46. Oh, he's just doing the bidding of the one who put him

there ... Mr. Sweep Things Under the Rug Himself.

[truthisfreedom]

14. Three words. Strongly worded letter.

[drokhole]

48. Lit by nothing but natural light!

/gratuitous Arrested Development reference

[musette_sf]

77. to be followed by

THE COMFY CHAIR

[Safetykitten]

16. Holder is on the case. You can sleep peacefully now that he's looking into it.

[glinda]

72. Can't sleep. Gotta get up at 3 am to watch the wedding Friday.

:sarcasm: :popcorn:

[femrap]

18. Holder going after the

Oil Boyz? :rofl:

[bullwinkle428]

27. Too bad they weren't growing their own marijuana!

;)

[femrap]

43. Damn right! nt

[inna]

104. .

:spray:

[madrchsod]

19. gasoline here in ronnyland jumped to 4 then back to 3.85 then back to 4

within the last three days. on the same day the bp station in town was 3.85 and the bp off the tollway was 4.

today everyone is at 4

[Plucketeer]

20. Just "disturbing"???

The consumers of this nation are OUTRAGED, and Hold-on's only disturbed. No wonder we're subsidizing these gluttons while they rake in record profits! The rest of the world must be laughing their collective asses off at our stupidity.:dunce:

[TheMadMonk]

61. Actually the rest of the world thinks $4-$5 is about what you SHOULD...

...be paying all the time.

And a whacking great chunk of it should be excise, because whilst without a smoking gun, there may be no way to prove or prevent collusion, it is perfectly possible to limit the price space in which they can play shenanigans by using excise to push up the price floor closer to the price ceiling.

[lib2DaBone]

102. But isn't Health Care included in the price of Petrol in England?

We should be getting health care for what we are paying for gas..

[jerseyjack]

21. Holder is as useless as this quote.

[truedelphi]

23. K & R for later viewing. Thank you for posting. n/t

[al_liberal]

26. He discovered they weren't willing to pay a proper tribute to the reelection fund.

Seriously, does anyone here think Holder has uncovered something that hasn't been common practice? This is purely a bread and circus move to appease the masses.

[backscatter712]

29. My bet is this is just a shot across the bow.

The high gas prices are eating at Obama's poll numbers, and I do think Obama has genuine concerns about the effects on the economy and on regular working stiffs, so this is a warning to the Kock brothers and other oil magnates & manipulators to knock this shit off.

I doubt actual prosecutions will occur, but we may see gas prices mysteriously come down for a while.

[glinda]

73. Two warnings. This and also the donor money exposures.

[ck4829]

30. Let's hope this isn't just to mollify the masses, this does need to be investigated

[RowdyRacer]

33. I'll file this under "No Shit"!!??

[SOS]

34. Speculators in the vampire casino

buying oil futures, driving up the price of gas, cleaning out the average American and making millions for themselves.
Disturbing, yes.
Surprising, no.

[nytemare]

51. Yes, I wonder if this investigation is on speculation, or individual stations.

I think if they're going after the gas station owners, they aren't seeing the forest for the trees. There is a gas station here near the airport that is notorious for not posting the cost, and charging some 50 cents more a gallon than the norm. Troublesome, yes, but not as troublesome as the speculation driving up the cost of oil in the first place.

[truedelphi]

54. Now Now Now -

Lately, the talking heads most closely affiliated with the Bigger Banks are issuing one statement after another, to the effect that the stock market and banking maneuvers have nothing at all to do with casino style gambling.

In fact, some of those folks have been bold enough to say that the whole notion of "casino banking" is a lie!

[SOS]

63. Things like

credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, oil futures, bucket shops and mortgage-backed securities are complicated!
We wouldn't be able to understand them anyway.

Best that our trusty media not examine these endless grifts.
Just regurgitate the phony supply and demand scenarios disseminated by PR flacks.

[RobinA]

88. Nothing at All

to do with casino-style gambling? Well, true...there are no blinking lights, free drinks or helpful waitresses.

[SOS]

98. There is one relevant blinking light

The price of June 2011 oil futures.
Low $73.51, yesterday $112

A million barrels of light sweet crude bought at the low will likely yield a profit for the
speculator of over $40 million.

Although on the downside, his chauffeur will probably have to add $50 a week to his bill.

Shots of Macallan 1926 single malt at the Bull and Bear after work!

[Zorra]

35. A strongly worded letter will be issued shortly. nt

[TK421]

53. that'll teach 'em!

[janet118]

36. Well then, shut up and prosecute . . .

I'm sure there are lots of "disturbing" revelations about Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, too. Why are there no prosecutions.

And, while you're at it, close Gitmo.

[cui bono]

39. Seriously. n/t

[FirstLight]

38. prosecute...?

don;t make me laugh...they will go behind closed doors to figure out how to get their 'cut' and it will be forgotten for the next shiny news story...

we are so screwn

[WhiteTara]

40. If they know everything about everyone, then

they should be able to use some resources and uncover this fraud. If patterns are habitual, then, they should be easy to track.

[OnyxCollie]

71. They can start with this.

Daboub, A. J., Rasheed, A. M., Priem, R. L., & Gray, D. A. (1995). Top management team characteristics and corporate illegal activity. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 138-170.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Ratigan had a guy by the name of Bill Fleckenstein

A hedge fund trader saying that speculation was not the cause of oil prices going up.

Not exactly going to trust a damn thing he says.

[orangeapple]

42. supply is dropping

Demand continues to outstrip supply.
Econ 101: prices go up.
I don't suppose Holder will send any investigators to the Economics Department of the local university to provide them a clue.

Couple that with continued billions of USD 'printed' every month by the Fed and the price has nowhere else to go.

But please, commence with the hangings...

[tiny elvis]

66. do not neglect to say where the demand is

the world's use of oil did not suddenly increase at a rate forcing bids 20% higher or more
the graph shows usa stocks are about the same as they were a year ago
if the usa will fight wars for oil, then why is oil managed by obscure middlemen in palaces?
that is capitalism for you
clever people have confused you and fooled you and they are well rewarded

[orangeapple]

91. sigh...

"the world's use of oil did not suddenly increase at a rate forcing bids 20% higher or more"

The demand for oil has increases while supplies have decreased, this raises the price. The fact that even with higher prices demand continues to grow and stockpiles shrink is evidence the price is still not as high as it will go. When you see demand (consumption) falling, or stockpiles (supply) growing you'll see prices reverse. This is the most basic relationship in economics. Sadly, people don't make it out of high school with this understanding of how this phenomena works, so they latch onto conspiracy theories without ever looking for or addressing the underlying facts that shape their world.


"the graph shows usa stocks are about the same as they were a year ago"

The graph shows stocks declining even with a price ~$1 higher! That means prices still have room to go up before demand is brought in line with supply. That's why you hear analysts (people who look at this same information) predicting gas prices will be even higher this summer.

"if the usa will fight wars for oil, then why is oil managed by obscure middlemen in palaces?
that is capitalism for you"

Capitalism is a system of free production and free trade. Fighting wars to obtain resources isn't capitalism, but a monstrous form of mercantilism everyone should reject. Unfortunately, without even the consent of Congress, our President has decided to involve us in another war with an oil producing nation. This has helped reduce the world oil supply, and raised oil prices (crude oil accounts for ~68% of the price of gasoline). Apparently he means well, so some folks overlook the implications and consequences.

[HankyDubs]

76. care to divulge your source?

i didn't think so.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[orangeapple]

110. you're quoting an article over TWO YEARS OLD

trying to explain why gas prices have been rising NOW?!
This was even before Bernanke had finished printing nearly 2 TRILLION dollars to try and prop up stock prices and convince Americans everything is hunky dory. Problem is he can't control where all the new money goes, and it flows into goods with relatively inelastic demand first. That's why the price of commodities is rocketing even as leveraged goods (like housing) continue to slide.

If the Feds measured inflation the way they did in 1980 the headline number would be closer to 10%, but believe what you want. It's clear the facts don't matter, you have your opinion to defend.

in fact, ignore all that, whip up some more insults, and pat yourself on the back for maintaining your carefully constructed delusions about where the real blame lays for this mess:

"A little parable may prove useful: Today an ounce of gold sells for $300, more or less. Now suppose that a modern alchemist solves his subject's oldest problem by finding a way to produce unlimited amounts of new gold at essentially no cost. Moreover, his invention is widely publicized and scientifically verified, and he announces his intention to begin massive production of gold within days. What would happen to the price of gold? Presumably, the potentially unlimited supply of cheap gold would cause the market price of gold to plummet. Indeed, if the market for gold is to any degree efficient, the price of gold would collapse immediately after the announcement of the invention, before the alchemist had produced and marketed a single ounce of yellow metal.

What has this got to do with monetary policy? Like gold, U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services." - Benjamin Bernanke, 2002

Care to look at what has happened to the price, in dollars, of gold and oil since this clown took the helm of the dollar printing presses?

BTW, here's the source for that statement: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm

[HankyDubs]

111. has the dynamic changed?

It certainly hasn't. You can't deal with the facts. Supply is being manipulated and this has been going on for quite some time.

You insulted me, I merely responded in kind. My first post to you was not insulting, but you chose to call me an asshole. Don't whine about name-calling when you initiate it.

[orangeapple]

113. really

"care to divulge your source?
i didn't think so"

Didn't think what? Didn't think to look at the source info on the image, that's what. That was an asshole comment on your part, and you know it.

You think Bernanke printing TRILLIONS of dollars and backstopping 10s of TRILLIONS more in bank assets, along with consecutive years of TRILLION+ deficits in large part funded by the Fed and not savings didn't affect the dynamics of a commodity priced in dollars? Honestly!?

EIA updated the graph since I linked. Gasoline stocks fell again. Expect prices to keep rising, because we haven't even hit peak summer demand yet.

Meanwhile the administration stymies Canada's efforts to build a pipeline to the U.S. so they're looking to build a pipeline to their west coast to feed China. So I guess you'll blame Canada for 'supply manipulation' next, right?

We've essentially quit offering permits to drill off our coasts. My cousin's husband works on a drilling rig. He used to spend 14 on 14 off in the Gulf. Now he's 28 on 28 off, but he has to fly down to Brazil before getting on the helicopter. Is that another 'supply manipulation'? If so, who gets the credit?

[HankyDubs]

114. The fact remains

I did not insult you. Whining about insults after you insulted me is just hypocrisy. I don't mind you calling me names, but the whining...that's annoying.

I provided evidence that the supply is being manipulated. You didn't like that but you still can't dispute it.

"We've essentially quit offering permits to drill off our coasts."

Bullshit.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/08/6429364-not-fabulous-still-good-enough-for-drilling-permits

[orangeapple]

116. As April 9th they had issued only 10 permits

"Until Monday , federal regulators had not allowed any offshore drilling that had been off limits under the five-month ban against some deep-water exploration, even though the ban ended in October.
...
But offshore drilling advocates were doubtful the move would unleash a flood of permits because the project approved Monday was one of 16 under way when the ban was imposed - and therefore faced a clearer path to approval than proposals filed since last year's oil spill."

Who is manipulating the supply?

"The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day."

Those drilling rigs don't sit around waiting. They cost too much. That's why my cousin's husband is working off Brazil's coast as I type instead of in the Gulf.

[HankyDubs]

118. it's almost as if you totally forgot

the disaster caused by the deep water drilling you demand more of.

"The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day."

In 2007 the US consumed 20,680,000 barrels per day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

Now take the total oil consumption of the entire world (85,085,664 barrels/day) and figure out what percentage of that number 220,000 barrels is.

Your argument is now just totally pathetic.

[orangeapple]

119. so you agree supply is decreasing

demand is increasing, yes?
And on top of that Bernanke has injected TRILLIONS of dollars into world markets.

Why are you surprised the price of a relatively inelastic good is going up?

Do you understand the term 'market clearing price'?

If a good is priced too high (Playstations 3 when it was first released at $600 is a good example) it sits on the shelf.
If a good is priced too low (Wii when it was released at $200 is another good example of this) stores can't keep it on the shelf.

Since the stockpiles of gasoline continue to go down even as prices rise we have concrete evidence that the price of gasoline still has room to run up.
Where did all the money come from to sustain gasoline prices this high come from?
Answer that and then you've found the real manipulator.

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth.
Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become "profiteers," who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes, 1919


You see the oil companies reaping the windfall, but don't see where all that money is actually coming from so you paint your target on the wrong back, and the banksters are laughing at you...

[HankyDubs]

120. at me?

"the banksters are laughing at you..."

At ME? You're the one shaking your ass for speculators and gurgling this bullshit "econ 101" and "supply and demand."

I haven't commented on your remarks about Bernanke and the banking cabal...I agree with much of your criticism there.

My point has been that multinationals and bankster speculators have been manipulating the available supply and thus price of oil. You were the one defending these people with your "econ 101" bullshit. I'm glad you have come around to my point of view.

[orangeapple]

122. why do you keep ducking the questions?

Why are you surprised the price of a relatively inelastic good is going up given TRILLIONS of dollars have been injected into the economy?

Do you understand the term 'market clearing price'?

Do you think that the relationship of price to supply and demand is "bullshit"?

[HankyDubs]

124. you are the one bobbing and weaving

after I totally exposed your "drill baby drill" argument, your claim that there is no manipulation of supply going on.

So now you are moving on without referring to these points. Have TRILLIONS (it does look better in all caps) been injected in just the last few weeks?

Do you understand the term "shill?"

[orangeapple]

125. 3 questions, still no answers

You answer mine, I'll answer yours:

Why are you surprised the price of a relatively inelastic good is going up given TRILLIONS of dollars have been injected into the economy?

Do you understand the term 'market clearing price'?

Do you think that the relationship of price to supply and demand is "bullshit"?

[geckosfeet]

85. BS. Corporate BS.

Based on that chart, we have the same supply as we did last May - if not a tad more. How does that show demand outstrips supply? It does not even address demand.

Oh I know - we should simply take your word for it that we are all gluttonous pigs wasting gasoline in our hummers and Ferrari's, and burning fuel oil to keep our homes at a cozy 75 degrees.

Based on the chart I would say price rigging is possibly, if not very likely taking place.

[orangeapple]

94. allow me to explain

"Based on that chart, we have the same supply as we did last May - if not a tad more. How does that show demand outstrips supply? It does not even address demand."

You have to look at the slope of the curve. The stocks are decreasing, that's how you know that demand is outstripping production. If stocks were staying the same or increasing then production (supply) would be above demand, and the line would be sloping up.


"Oh I know - we should simply take your word for it that we are all gluttonous pigs..."

Please, is that kind of nonsense beneficial to your understanding? Or does saying nonsensical things make you feel better in some way?
You don't need to take my word for it, the federal government has compiled statistics on gasoline supply and demand for decades.

Fact: stockpiles of gasoline are decreasing.
Fact: prices are increasing.

What does this tell us? It tells us that even with increased prices demand has not been brought in line with supply (hence supply is decreasing).

There are two ways to resolve this, reduced demand for gasoline, or increasing the supply of gasoline. I don't expect global demand for gasoline to shrink, or even level off - not when the Chinese are buying more cars per year than Americans. So we can either increase supply, or watch prices continue to rise in an effort to keep demand from outstripping supply.

"Based on the chart I would say price rigging is possibly, if not very likely taking place."

Based on that statement I would say you didn't understand that chart, but I hope it is clearer now.

[geckosfeet]

121. The only thing that is clearer is your misunderstanding of the meaning of slope.

The slope simply indicates that derivative (that slope thingy) of the curve is negative in this case. Yes supply is decreasing. Same as it was last year at this time. But supply is still at higher levels than a year ago.

Demand is NOT on the chart. It cannot be inferred in any definitive sense from the chart. The slope certainly does not indicate demand in any mathematical sense. To imply otherwise is a grand misstatement.

[LTX]

87. Quite the opposite --

There's a glut of oil on the market. See:

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2011/04/01/oil-glut-at-cushing-oklahoma-could-last-two-years/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Valero-reports-profit-of-98-million-in-first-1352872.php

http://arabnews.com/economy/article371083.ece

[orangeapple]

97. oil is not gasoline

but there are some important points in those links:
"Canada is frustrated with our inability to handle its oil flows and plans to build a pipeline to the west coast and ship its oil to China."


So what has the President done to ensure that one of our oldest allies, and most stable oil sources, can sell us the oil instead of sending it to China?
By: Matthew Daly, The Associated Press
"The State Department said Friday that a new environmental study of an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas shows no new issues since a similar report was issued last year.
The report on the proposed $7 billion, 1,900-mile pipeline, comes as President Barack Obama offered his first public comments on the project, which would carry crude oil extracted from tar sands in western Canada, to refineries in Texas. At a town hall meeting on energy last week, Obama said concerns about the potentially "destructive" nature of the Canadian oil sands need to be answered before his administration decides whether to approve a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline."

Think China gives a fig about the "destructive" nature of Canadian oil sands? We're not going to stop Canada from selling the oil, but we can stop Americans from easily accessing it.

Increasing demand means we need increased infrastructure. Here's a chance to create jobs in America and reduce our dependence on oil from unstable (and even hostile) regions. When will the President let it happen?

A final, and crucial point, the supply of dollars is increasing. If supply and demand were merely static, and the Fed printed billions of dollars, prices would rise. Considering the trillions they've handed out, this new money is going to slosh through markets and create otherwise inexplicable price increases.

[Ikonoklast]

109. Can you tell me why diesel is so expensive now?

I can.

[orangeapple]

112. please, tell me

[Ikonoklast]

117. I see you don't really know.

Interesting.

[bluerum]

44. You will excuse me if I remain cautiously skeptical.

If crude prices go up and gas prices increase proportionally, I can deal. But record profits means gouging based on a lie, doesn't it? Seems fairly straightforward. Why the cloak and dagger bullshit?

[jimlup]

49. Yeah, I'll join you in remaining skeptical

I think today's announcement was more likely just political maneuvering.

[skepticscott]

56. This charade has been acted out before

by previous administrations, and ultimately came to nothing. As I expect the current version will.

[sendero]

82. With Holder..

.. you can REST ASSURED that nothing will happen.

[Synnical]

50. I am Jack's Total Lack of Surprise (Fight Club Quotation)

That is, dissociate disorder of the globe!

Criminey!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Canuckistanian]

55. He's shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you

He had NO IDEA that gas prices were being manipulated. Now, where are his winnings?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

58. The fraud task force will be followed by

a report to the investigatory committee which will make some vague suggestions to a governance board who will send a memo to an ad-hoc panel that answers only to a bi-partisan blue-ribbon energy council run by industry experts and lobbyists (or "lawmakers" as they're now known). And by golly in 8 or 10 months we'll have some really strong words for the yahoos running the unregulated commodities' markets that have been ass fucking us for the last decade.

Yea, it's disturbing, but not in the way Mr. Holder means.

[WatchWhatISay]

64. The Clinton administration did some investigations like these

Twice that I remember. And both times prices started coming back down. GWB's administration never did.

They will back off fast if they think someone is looking and might do something.

[Initech]

74. Fuck the oil companies.

[tridim]

75. Rec, but only for the OP, not the masses of idiotic responses.

It's good news, take it.

[Enthusiast]

79. We aren't going to let them off

scott free? Come on, Eric, give the criminals fair warning before you change the game midstream.

[indimuse]

80. knr! n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x968409


;)

[mountainlion55]

89. To quote an old friend

Tune in,Turn-on and drop Out!:evilgrin:

[Pacifist Patriot]

90. I see a nice firm finger wagging and tongue lashing in some companies' futures.

Bet they are shaking in their A. Testoni's

[StarburstClock]

95. Head of the CFTC on the Ed Show: Speculator Position Limits Are Needed NOW

http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/cftc-commissioner-chilton-takes-support-for-position-limits-public0315/

---- Last Wednesday, Chilton discussed his position with Ed Schultz, host of MSNBC’s The Ed Show (watch the full clip of the interview below or read a transcript at msnbc.msn.com). In a segment bluntly titled “Wall Street vs. Working Americans,” Chilton laid out his argument in general terms and placed it in the context of the Middle East unrest that has been driving up oil prices. Events in Libya and elsewhere had a hand in recent price increases, he said, but were not the only driving force. Chilton was careful to stop short of indicting speculators as a group, but said their activities are without a doubt “tapping the gas pedal” on the road to higher gasoline and heating oil prices. In the end, his appearance on the show amounted to an exhortation for support of position limits. “We need these position limits in place and we need them soon,” he said. ----

[lsewpershad]

96. About time

[Uncle Joe]

99. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RamboLiberal.

[Blue Owl]

107. Well duh

The USA today is really on top of things.

:sarcasm:

[Cowpunk]

108. Uh oh, sounds like it's time for a sternly-worded letter. NT

[FSogol]

115. Arrest the CEO and Board of Exxon, Shell, Chervon, etc.

Dare I hope?

[pinniped]

123. I find it disturbing that they found something disturbing.

.