Peter_Puget

DNR = Department of Natural Resources

Accoding to the handbook how many bolts SHOULD this route have?

Graduation Day But here in these photos from Abu Ghraib, you have every Islamic fundamentalist stereotype of Western culture -- all nicely arranged in one hideous image-- imperial arrogance, sexual depravity ... and gender equality. What I have finally come to understand, sadly and irreversibly, is that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of moral superiority on the part of women is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism. bio

I say rate them what you they are rated!

Dunae must be paired with Betts for his best stuff.

link

great link

Link 1 Link 2 link 3 Ok so this isn't new info but I am behind the times PP

My thoughts were the above.

Last week June 2004 and June 2005 were approx. $42 & $35 respectively. That seems like a steep discount.

Find out about inventory levels too!

The German Grand Prix!

You may be arguing semantics here, I'm not sure. The price is set on open exchanges around the world. However, 40% of the world's daily oil supply is controlled by one producer: OPEC (I'll post references if you want them). That is imperfect competition and it does create deadweight loss - that is the point I was trying to make. See my post above. I was being a smarty and changed my post but my point was that the imperfections of markets are to my mind often overstated and the beneficial impacts understated. The normal laws of supply and demand are manipulated under a cartelized system like this. The basic theory is that OPEC considers the amount of oil to be supplied in the competitive marketplace (by countries such as Russia) and determines their output based upon residual demand, that is, the demand "left over" after the rest of the world supplies their oil. They set their profit maximizing level of output based upon this information. That is very much imperfect competition. You are right, very few markets are perfectly competitive. However, their is a major difference between monopolistically competitive markets, competitive oligopolies, and cartelized oligopolies. Again, my point was that the cartelized system does create deadweight loss. The second point I was trying to make is that while the mechanics of higher oil prices differ from those of a tax, there are general similarities. In the short run, higher costs for factors of production lead to lower levels of output (that is the similarity I'm talking about-lower output). It is great to see that we have become more efficient in using or oil (in terms of oil per dollar GDP). That is a long run transition; in the short run, it is essentially impossible to find a substitute. This IS a contractionary factor. The high prices are a SYMPTOM of high demand and an uncompetitive marketplace (largely from the former, in my opinion). They will lead to lower levels of production in the short run and substitution (and more efficiency) in the long run. I agree with you in general, Iguess I find that short-term and long-term to be difficult subjects to define. In 1978 I would have felt that 2004 was a lifetime away now I look and think what large changes the US economy has made. I do think that higher prices caused by demand will entice producers to increase output. What do you think of the backwardation of the current market. I know little of oil markets but find it an interesting situation Would you please clarify what you mean by that?

I guess the outcome one sees is dependent upon how one views the current rise price. Is it due primarily to demand and uncertainty in the ME or the result of OPEC restrictions? How does the current backwardation play into it? Honestly I have no clue.

What's starts 5 days , 15 hours and 10 minutes from now?

Given that someone asked recently about adj. daisy chains and there is an ongoing debate about screamers. link

JJD - Come on she calls it pretty much correctly. You are flat out incorrect when you state that a competitive market does not create the price of oil. It does. It is not perfect competition but what market is? The basic laws of supply and demand work even in imperfect markets. Besides suggesting that a demand curve will shift does not imply that the market was clearing before the change took place. edit: So I was a bit aggressive in by response but I do think that the volume targets set by OPEC are have to consider many things not the least of which are the potential for cheating my its members and I also believe that after the targets are set they are often influenced by the cheating of member states. As to long-term/short-term issues consider this: In 1978 the U.S. consumed more than 18 million barrels of oil every day, when annual GDP was $5 trillion. Today we use only 10% more oil every day than we did then, but GDP has more than doubled. (constant year-2000 dollars)

Will - Assuming the price to the consumer is unchanged the quantity demanded will not change. They can produce more but will they sell? By the way as a short term accounting trick manufacturers have been known to increase production so that costs can be capitalized rather than expensed in periods of low sales.

link

[T]he issue is not whether the world is running out of oil. The debate concerns a theoretical milestone called Hubbert's peak, after which output from any given field slows and becomes more costly to produce long before the last drop is lifted. Half of Saudi Arabia's oil comes from the giant and venerable Ghawar field; much of the remainder comes from four other aging giants that may be at or near their Hubbert's peak. What's true of a single field must, at some point, become true in aggregate of the world's inventory of productive oil fields. Various authorities have been sounding the SOS for the past year, their debate hosted in the pages of the Oil & Gas Journal. How much oil is left is far less significant than how quickly and cheaply it can be extracted, especially from a relative handful of large, cheap-to-produce fields that have carried industrial man for a century. Some believe that getting much above today's 80 million barrels a day would be horrendously costly if not impossible. If they're correct, two billion Chinese and Indians, right now beginning to trade their bicycles for Toyotas, would be stuck trying to achieve modernity by outbidding the rest of us for a share of the world's current rate of oil production rather than benefiting from additional output. All this has some petroleum engineers predicting resource wars, famine and pestilence, preventable only by a massive effort of central planning to shift the world to a less hydrocarbon-intensive lifestyle. If so, we might as well pass around the cyanide caplets right now. Such global planning is certainly beyond the wisdom and power of politicians to manage. Yet the unwillingness of doomsayers to credit price signals with eliciting changed consumption behavior, new technology, a thousand substitutions and other adaptive responses is more than a little peculiar here. Oil companies have held back from investing in deep-water searches, Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan bitumen for fear oil prices will plummet to $15. Shareholders have kept Big Oil on a short leash, tolerating only low-risk investment projects that will generate cash flow in a small number of years. Won't this change now if higher prices seem a permanent feature of the landscape? Motorists might or might not be willing to swallow price hikes, but what about other industries that use petroleum as feedstock? They're price sensitive and would be expected to adapt in ways that aren't all easy to foresee from today's vantage. Scare talk is a hardy perennial in the global petroleum business, a passport to fun and attention from the media. Industrial society is frequently painted as a fragile, vulnerable machine, yet all the evidence suggests the opposite: It's a machine that has grown more resilient and adaptable the more complex and interdependent the world becomes. In short, as long as the price mechanism is allowed to work, mankind seems likely to muddle through. Hallelujah, then, for higher oil prices. link

You're both crazy...Vertical World Seattle!...unless of course there be offwidths to climb!

Link

Universal Syncopations - Vitous Live in Paris - McLaughlin Both a bit sleepy but good for work.

my response addresses your question. assessing the cost of environmental damage based on scientifically sound standards and making sure the real cost is paid by those who make a profit destroying the environment account for all values of americans (which aren't really mutually exclusive). You completely miss my question and I question you understanding of the term "cost"

Easy Josh several have been given by MAtt: Specifically: Forest Service Management of Timer Resources Range Management for Live stock If you want the basic background for my assertion about lack of ability to value withotu private enterpise I would suggest reading Socialism by Mises. The calssic rejoinder that at the time seemed the destroy Ludwig's argument is by Oscar Lange I forgot the name of the book right now but it will be obvious if you do a search. After reading those two go on and do a search on more recent discussion of the issues and come to your own opinion.