But is not Obama speculating with our tax money on green or clean energy (or whatever it's called this week) by artificially manipulating markets? Who is going to protect us taxpayers from Obama's speculation on green energy companies? What penalty should Obama have to pay for speculating with our money? He called on Congress to pass a series of measures that would help limit speculation. Is speculation on availability of oil evil, yet speculation on green energy permissible?
Obama called for speculators to be monitored. Does that mean all speculation, or only on commodities of which he approves? Are we again seeing Obama's hypocrisy?
And Obama's speculation lately has not been stellar: Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1. Should Obama have to pay a penalty for speculations that went bankrupt, thus driving up the price of green energy?
An oil future (speculation) is a contract between a buyer and seller, in which the buyer agrees to purchase a certain amount of oil at a fixed price. Futures offer a way for a purchaser to bet on whether the oil price will increase in the future. Once locked into a contract, a futures buyer would receive a barrel of oil for the price dictated in the future contract, even if the market price was higher when the barrel was actually delivered. But nowhere does Obama speak to the fact that speculators may lose money. Obama wants to limit speculator profits, but not losses. Is that fair?
But that's just my opinion.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet HUSSEIN-Whose sane? Gardner
Ohhhh Good!!!! He's written another satire!!!
I'll make some popcorn!
2 - Jet HUSSEIN-Whose sane? Gardner
What is a speculator?
Financial players with no intention of using the physical commodity often are referred to as "speculators." In other words, they do not have a business need to buy or sell the commodity; they simply want to trade futures contracts to make a profit. Speculators, for example, could buy large numbers of oil contracts and then sell them to each other again and again. In 2008, on average, nearly 12 times the volume of oil was traded on futures exchanges as was consumed globally. Without proper oversight, transparency and limits on futures positions, speculative trading unjustifiably can increase the price of energy or other commodities-with businesses and consumers picking up the final tab.
What is a hedger?
Hedgers use the futures markets to manage risk by minimizing their exposure to significant price swings in commodities. This means that they usually buy or sell contracts at an amount related to the volume of what they will produce or what they will need to sell or purchase (to use in their business). Businesses such as airlines, trucking companies, oil companies and refineries are examples of these forms of hedgers.
What does trading "on paper" mean?
"Paper trading" is when speculators buy contracts for oil or other commodities with no intention of ever using, producing or taking delivery of the commodity. Speculators buy and sell these paper contracts to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20 times or more before it is delivered and used. The prices may go up with each trade.
Has speculation contributed to unwarranted oil price increases?
From the beginning to the end of 2008, the price of a barrel of crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) moved from $99.64 to $145.29 to $33.87. On the way up, it took just 103 days of trading for the price of crude to soar 67 percent (more than $58 per barrel) to its July 3 peak, followed immediately by a precipitous 77 percent decline (more than $111) in just 118 days of trading. It is difficult to explain that unprecedented price volatility by changes in supply and demand fundamentals. Fewer than six months after the December 2008 low of $33.87, oil prices settled north of $72 on June 11, despite adequate supplies and the sharpest year-over-year drop in global consumption in nearly 30 years.
Why has speculation increased in recent years?
Institutional investors (corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and university endowments) have poured billions of dollars into the commodities markets. These speculative trades have helped to drive up the price of oil because the majority of new contracts are betting on increases, rather than decreases. In effect, this swell in "artificial demand" for oil is upsetting the balance between physical supply and demand and, once again, fueling a price "bubble."
Just the facts ma'am
3 - Jet HUSSEIN-Whose sane? Gardner
It it fair that consumers pay for oil speculators to line their pockets-No
Is it possible for an oil speculator to LOSE money... pulllease.
Is it fair for Hussein to try to limit how many times a barrel of oil can be traded UP before it's ACTUALLY used raising pump prices?
You're god-damned right it is-Allah bless him.
4 - Jet HUSSEIN-Whose sane? Gardner
I read this article... twice. I can tell you that this article is NOT about oil or commodity speculation, it is not about prices at the pump and is not about future or proposed legislation.
What is article is, is another half-baked and rebaked editorial about how a misinformed and ignorant fool hates The President of The United States.
It is my opinion that his fact checker is Ted Nugent and that Sarah Palin would write a more intelligable article.
Any comment that follows having to do with speculation or facts having to do with speculation will be ignored. The author will state that the comment writer isn't writing about the facts he presented, because the only viable fact he has presented adnausem is that he hates Hussein Obama.
If you don't comment on how much you hate Obama too, you're not commenting on the article and didn't read it.
5 - Jet HUSSEIN-Whose sane? Gardner
As to the illustration, the price at the pump in Columbus Ohio is at $3.69 a gallon.
Higest reported today is $3.99-lowest is $3.49.
Why so low?
The glut of oil in the midwest is forcing prices down, because the oil companies don't have anywhere to ship it that is cost effective without the XL pipeline... so midwest oil STAYS IN THE MIDWEST.
Keeping oil in the U.S. would lower prices at the pump across the country, but that's not what the pipeline is for.
Just another example of why prices are so high on the coasts, that oil is being shipped to China who pays more for it-despite you bullshit about how everyone pays the same price for oil and refined gasoline.
I guess we're all A-rabs in Ohio...
praise Allah
6 - Jet Gardner
Michelle Bachmann on the president's efforts to stop oil speculators...
"This is just about waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem,"
The republican party is not racist... keep telling yourself that.
7 - Jet Gardner
By the way if you look closely at his little image there that's the price for premium, and is for some time ago.
8 - Frivolous D
Hey, Jet. I see you have insomnia too. Check out my comments on "More Unemployment News" to see what I mean.
9 - Frivolous D
Warren, you are what I call a "kitchen-sink" writer. That is, you throw in every negative you can think of to try and make your point.
What you will learn, in the next 24 hours or so is that, like your last article, so many poorly considered arguments are included that you've pretty much left both flanks exposed.
This isn't a sprint. Why don't you take the time to develop one strong argument instead of shooting yourself in the foot with a bunch of weak little arguments.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Jet -
It is my opinion that his fact checker is Ted Nugent and that Sarah Palin would write a more intelligable article.
Ouch!
11 - Warren Beaty
Here is a source that all you Kool-Aid drinkers may find interesting - or not. And y'all may want to read the Preface and Executive Summary of this source. And here, on page 5 of the report, is the damning statement: "...most empirical studies find that financial investment in commodities does not have a significant effect on commodity prices."
Let's see? Did Obama attend the G-20 summit in Cannes, France? Why, yes, yes he did. So does that mean that the report is valid? And was this report available for him to see? Again, yes, it was. So what conclusion can we draw from al of this? Regarding oil speculation, Obama is only interested in votes.
'So what is left? Avoid discussing the original issue, try to obfuscate by attacking the article author, pull out all the librul tricks.
12 - Igor
3-Jet: Obviously Obama is at fault for alarmingly low pump prices that are depriving investors of their just profits.
Is there no end to Obamas perfidy?
13 - Jet Gardner
Comment 2:
Explains speculation (your subject?)... I assumed oil because of the picture of a months-old Newt Gingrich campaign inflated gas station sign, but my comment was written at above a third grade level, and was about your supposed subject of a poorly written and researched article... so of course you didn't understand it.
I was NOT writing about how every single red-blooded Christian voting American is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like you, so it's understandable you missed that.
--------
Comment 3 was responding to your "is it fair" rant at the end of your misguided and misleading article, and not about how everyone is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like you, so it's understandable you missed that.
-------
Comment 4: addressed your perceived motive for writing the article and since I didn't explain who Ted Nugent or Sarah Palin are, I can understand your confusion that I wasn't addressing your article directly...
I was NOT writing about how every single outraged red-faced red-state American is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like you, so it's understandable you missed that.
---------
Comment 5: addressed the misleading and incorrect aspect of your "borrowed" illustration in your article directly and gave examples of how it was incorrect through most of the heartland of our wonderful and god-governed country.
I was NOT writing about how every church-going heterosexuual American gun owner is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like you, so it's understandable you missed that.
--------
Comment 6 is about an ignorant representative of the Republican't party named Michelle making a racist remark yesterday about "tar babies" at the afro-American President of the United States on the subject of your article.
But I admit confusion, since that actually is the subject of your article, so it's natural that I would be confused about my confusion over your confusing article.
But of course that's only my opinion of your opinion...
...after all
I was NOT writing about how every single red-blooded American is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like you, so it's understandable you missed that.
14 - Jet Gardner
Associated press:
A spokeswoman says U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann wasn't referring to race when she used the term "tar baby" to attack President Barack Obama's energy policy.
The Minnesota Republican told a conservative blog Wednesday that Obama's calls for more regulation of oil speculators "is just about waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem." In the Uncle Remus story, "tar baby" describes a tar lump dressed as a person to catch Brer Rabbit. But "tar baby" also has been considered a derogatory term for black people.
Bachmann spokeswoman Becky Rogness says in a Thursday email that Bachmann made a point about Obama's understanding of oil prices that has "nothing to do with race." Instead, Rogness says Obama "has gotten himself into a sticky situation."
-------
I believe and forgive Michelle, she was probably just quoting Warren...
15 - Jet Gardner
Keep an eye out for black unmarked helicopters with a picture of a tar baby on the side, and check your phone for wiretaps...
they're comin' fer you
BRUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
16 - Frivolous D
Warren, as I commented elsewhere...
Including "Hussein" is sophomoric shorthand for "I hate Obama." If you are trying to be persuesive, there is no "journalistic" motive to open with an irrelevant ad-hominin attack.
Your five dedicated, though liberal, followers already know how you feel. However, an uninitiated reader will not have the same insight into your particular brand of discourse. There is no reason to loose them in the first sentence.
After all, how are you gonna sell that car if you can't even get them to take a spin around the block.
On the other hand, if you don't care about alienating your readers, then you are just mastrabating, not writing.
17 - Frivolous D
The National Review Online hates Obama every bit as much as you.
Go there and I will give you a quarter for each use of "Hussein" that is without an appropriate context.
National Review Online
18 - Dr Hussein Dreadful
I believe Michele Bachmann when she says she wasn't being racist with the "tar baby" remark.
She was just displaying her ignorance: something she did to the world on a daily basis for a few months before deciding, with uncharacteristic prudence, to withdraw from the presidential race.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Of course Michelle Bachmann wasn't being racist, for we all know there's no other metaphor in the English language she could have used, right? It's just like when Rush Limbaugh repeatedly played "Barack the Magic Negro" on his radio show - why, he wasn't being racist at all!
And the Republican party is SO diverse, as we can see in the conventions and the meetings and the Tea Party rallies....
20 - Warren Beaty
Re: comment # 11, my closing remark: I rest my case.
21 - Dr Hussein Dreadful
Warren makes the staggering discovery that politicians in election years are interested in votes.
Will he next make the equally staggering discovery that the other 6,999,999,999 of us on the planet have known about this phenomenon for a while?
Here's a question, Warren: If we "libruls" all have no arguments, and nothing to resort to other than personal attacks, then why are we talking? Why aren't we just conservatives?
22 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
You'll like this - Ann Coulter just said that "negroes need guns" because of the "Democratic KKK".
I'm fairly sure that Warren would agree with her wholeheartedly, never mind that he would also know quite well that the KKK (such as it is) is strongest in the South...which is solidly Republican.
23 - Jet Gardner
A. Are you sure he knows who Ann Coulter is?
B. Are you sure he knows what KKK stands for (or if he can spell it)
C. Of course his comment 11 stands, after all since we're NOT writing about how every single TAR BABY WAVING, red-blooded, Catholic-pretending-to-be-a-sourthern-baptist-Christian, voting American is a foaming-at-the-mouth Hussein Obama hater like him, then it's obvious we didn't read the article right.
For god's sake Glenn pay attention to the man, he's trying to teach us something important!
Because they know every KKK member will now want it to take to their rallys and coat their crosses with it, I'll betcha half the southern millionaires are investing in tar futures as we speak!
24 - Frivolous D
Warren,
Does it not strike you as ironic when you call us kool-aid drinkers that use "liberal tricks" and in the same breath, tell us to stop obfuscating "by attacking the article author."
To keep your charge in perspective, of the thousand or so comment words posted prior to yours in #11, you have had two brief sarcasms of your writing skills (#1 & #4), an unflattering, though genuinely constructive writing criticism (yours truly, #9) and only one personal attack (#4) from a commentator who had actually troubled to read your article carefully and put up about 950 of those comment words in a direct address to the article's content.
And, don't forget that you are, in effect, insulting anyone who supports Obama by your insistence with including "Hussein."
25 - Jet Gardner
Don't forget Ted Nugent, Friv, you forgot Ted Nugent... he doesn't like to be ignored and he has guns.