4 things that conservatives predicted with an Obama relection

[Puppycow]

Evidence ?

I think that's true, but irrelevant. Irrelevant to the original prediction(s):

1. Gas was supposed to cost $5.45 per gallon.

In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.

Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.

Don't let him move the goalposts.

 

[The Don]

I think that's true

I disagree.

U.S. (and other free market) petrol prices are largely dependent on crude oil prices. There are other factors like the availability of petrol (dependent on refining capacity), profit margins and taxation (and for countries that don't have the U.S. dollar as their currency, currency fluctuations) but the primary driver appears to be crude prices.

I haven't seen evidence to support the position that the primary driver behind the drop in world crude prices is U.S. fracking. It may be a factor but most commentators I've read say that the main factors are a combination of:

• Lower demand globally, especially in Europe and Asia (China being a major contributor)
• An unwillingness for OPEC to reduce production combined with a number of production outages being reversed
• The oil price at $135 a barrel included a considerable "upwards speculation" amount. The current oil price may include the reverse

 

[The Don]

Economic reasoning behind supply and demand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

American oil production at 25 year high
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-11/fracking-boom-pushes-u-s-oil-output-to-25-year-high.html

That is evidence that it is a factor not, as you claim, the main factor.

 

[marplots]

Who are still a statistical minority. Do you really think the average immigrant is only doing so to immediately start robbing and raping in their new land?

Not at all. I think immigrants bring with them their ways of making a living. For some, it's organized crime.

Whether they are numerically a small proportion isn't as important as the damage they do. The case is built on the more visible and violent examples. Someone who immigrates and "disappears" into a life of commerce and good citizenry doesn't have the visible impact of someone practicing the violent arts. So the immigrant population in question may be characterized by these outliers and the case built that having the bad actors isn't compensated by having the good.

 

[Puppycow]

I disagree.

U.S. (and other free market) petrol prices are largely dependent on crude oil prices. There are other factors like the availability of petrol (dependent on refining capacity), profit margins and taxation (and for countries that don't have the U.S. dollar as their currency, currency fluctuations) but the primary driver appears to be crude prices.

I haven't seen evidence to support the position that the primary driver behind the drop in world crude prices is U.S. fracking. It may be a factor but most commentators I've read say that the main factors are a combination of:

• Lower demand globally, especially in Europe and Asia (China being a major contributor)
• An unwillingness for OPEC to reduce production combined with a number of production outages being reversed
• The oil price at $135 a barrel included a considerable "upwards speculation" amount. The current oil price may include the reverse

While the growth in demand for oil may have slowed, it is still positive. The latest figures I can find state that more oil was consumed last year than in the previous year and more is projected to be consumed this year than last year. It's the supply that has outpaced the demand and much of the new supply comes from the U.S. right now. I'll try to find some good links later but I am on my mobile right now. For now there's this:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0I30TD20141014?irpc=932

Notice that they are talking about slower growth in demand, not a decline in demand.

 

[The Don]

I'll try to find some good links later but I am on my mobile right now.

Thanks

 

[Norman Alexander]

The right wing has this idea that immigrants only want in to America to wreak havoc via crime. This has historically never been true yet they cling to it anyways, generation after generation.

First Nation Americans probably thought the same thing when the first Vikings, Celts and English settlers plonked themselves unbidden on their shores...

 

[Puppycow]

Thanks

I'm at home now, but I haven't been able to find much better information than what's in the article I already linked. I can quote the relevant bits though:

The IEA said it cut its 2015 estimate for oil demand growth by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) from its previous forecast and now expects demand growth of 1.1 million bpd to 93.5 million. It cut its 2014 estimate by 200,000 bpd to 0.7 million bpd.

It said demand would be supported by prices near four year lows - oil LCOc1 is around $88 a barrel from above $115 in June, a 25 percent drop resulting from a boom in U.S. shale oil production, slow global growth and a strong dollar.

But it added that those low prices would remain under pressure because of supply levels: Global oil supply rose by almost 910,000 bpd in September to 93.8 million bpd, almost 2.8 million bpd higher than the previous year.

So in summary total demand for oil grew by 0.7 million bpd in 2014 and is expected to grow by 1.1 million bpd, but supply has grown by 2.8 million bpd in the last year. So both demand and supply are growing, but supply is growing faster.

You also want evidence that most of the new supply is coming from fracking in the US? This data shows that oil production in the US rose by 1.3 million bpd over the last 12 months (through October):
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M

That would account for almost half of total global supply growth in the last year, and is also almost twice as much as global demand growth over the same period.

Oil is famous for having an inelastic demand curve, if you know what that means. IOW, we tend to consume about the same amount of it regardless of the price. We may consume a little more or a little less at the margins, but you can't very well just stop buying it if you are unhappy about the price. And what that means is that even a small mismatch between supply and demand for oil can cause large swings in its price. So yes, even a mere extra 1% added to the global supply could make a big change in price if it is not also matched by a 1% rise in demand.

 

[coalesce]

Thank you, Puppycow, for that excellent summation.

Michael

 

[Tony Stark]

Bump as a reminder that Republicans don't know what they **** they are talking about (or are flat out liars).

 

[Giordano]

I think it is obvious: God relented and chose to save us instead. Probably because of the organized prayers of the religious right-wing. But you better elect a Republican next time. Or God will be very upset and there is no predicting what God might do. He might even have the wrong team win the next Super Bowl.

 

[Manopolus]

I think it is obvious: God relented and chose to save us instead. Probably because of the organized prayers of the religious right-wing. But you better elect a Republican next time. Or God will be very upset and there is no predicting what God might do. He might even have the wrong team win the next Super Bowl.

Oh, so it was God who deflated those footballs. Damn!

 

[Giordano]

Oh, so it was God who deflated those footballs. Damn!

I think that is what the Patriots are claiming.