Another Debate: Global Warming/Climate Change

[Maggie]

Interesting, obviously it does not surprise me if these big investment banks would utilize a loophole that would allow them to bypass the US regulatory authorities – anything to make a buck or a billion bucks. I am only moderately familiar with the US side of things and know next to nothing about how the Brits regulate their markets.

While it would not surprise me if there is some "shady" activity (not necessarily illegal) on the part of some big investment banks, I don't necessarily like where all this is headed. I think the high price of oil is caused by a number of factors, not just speculators who, incidentally, would be easy scapegoats. This type of attention by Congress, the Press, etc. often leads to knee jerk legislation and regulation that can have unintended consequences.

[ABC]

Today's Wall Street Journal makes a compelling case that the criticism of speculating is hogwash.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426475050198395.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

The futures market may be a convenient scapegoat, but it's simply a price discovery mechanism. Major energy consumers – refiners, airlines – buy and sell these contracts to lock in goods at a future price, as a hedge against volatility. Essentially, they're guesses about coming oil supply and demand, as well as the rate of inflation. The political theory is that such futures trading is creating a bubble in the spot market (i.e., oil purchased for immediate delivery) beyond oil fundamentals. Thus, $4 gas.

But there's no inherent reason to "bet" that commodities will go up rather than down. Bet wrong – place all your chips on red, say – and you lose. If a company purchases the future right to buy oil at $140 a barrel and it instead sells for $130, the option is worthless. Besides, somebody has to take the other side of any futures contract: Some are trying to predict where the price will go in the future, while the other side is attempting to sell its future price risk. But no one knows how things will end up.

One omnipresent talking point is that the so-called "Enron loophole" must be closed. A provision inserted in legislation in 2000 exempted certain oil contract exchanges where transactions were made via computer and telephone, rather than on a trading floor, from regulations that govern other exchange-traded commodities. But Congress ended that practice as part of its most recent farm bill, and there's no evidence that "over the counter" trading has caused the increase in oil prices. The political enthusiasm seems to arise solely from the word "Enron."

[SubGod22]

Mike Bakers Thoughts

[Maggie]

Baker, who I am not familiar with, does have a universal point – no real issue in today's politics is discussed in any depth or in a manner in which would truly educate the voters. Everything is a "sound bite"/"talking point" that gets parroted to death by the mass media. The cable news shows, and I mean everyone one of them, contribute to this problem by devoting a limited amount of time to multiple topics squeezed into about 45mins of actual airtime (depending on the commercials and, of course, assuming an hour long show). Consequently, the politicians are keenly aware they can say practically anything and get away with it…..one such statement by, in this case, Obama really annoyed the heck out of me; however, it is off topic:

Obama stated that it is his intention to negotiate directly with, for example, Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions without preconditions. While the statement alone caused me to do a double take his justification was simply, if taken in the very best light -- intellectually lazy, he stated, and I am summarizing: Kennedy negotiated with Khrushchev, Nixon went to China and Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. Sounds reasonable, right? Dig deeper and it reflects a profound misreading of history.

As for the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit, Kennedy himself said it was a disaster. Khrushchev came away with the impression that Kennedy was inexperienced, immature and worst of all weak. So successful was the summit that the Berlin Wall was erected later that year and the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Soviets deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba, commenced the following year. Yes, it is fine example of negotiation without preconditions when, as a result of your summit, your adversary is willing to divide a city and bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

If Barack Obama wants to affiliate with Richard Nixon, that’s certainly his call. However, Nixon, among other things wanted to further weaken the relationship between China and the Soviet Union – not a bad thing. But one question: Was Taiwan’s expulsion from the U.N. worth the trip? That was the price of that meeting. No one can say this was a negotiation without preconditions.

Finally, Ronald Reagan met with no Soviet leader during the entirety of his first term in office, not with Brezhnev, not with Andropov, not with Chernenko – they were still the evil empire. He met only with Gorbachev, and after he was assured (notably by Margaret Thatcher), Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader — and after Perestroika, not before. I don’t think I am going out on a limb by writing the current situation with Iran is much, much different.

Obama's attempt to justify this proposed change in foreign policy was a neat little sound bite that sounds, on its face, quite reasonable – to me this is nauseating and insulting. It gets repeated by the media and his surrogates from time to time – but has his justification been explored in depth – nope.

I am done venting now – back to the high price of oil.

[SubGod22]

Mike Baker is an ex CIA operative who's had some successful business ventures. He's also a regular on a show I enjoy (Red Eye)

[Maggie]

Mike Baker is an ex CIA operative who's had some successful business ventures. He's also a regular on a show I enjoy (Red Eye)

Yeah, I gathered as much from Bakers bio....I have never heard of Red Eye.

[SubGod22]

It comes on at 3am on the east coast during the week on Fox News. I record it every night and watch it the next day. News and humor all wrapped up :D

[SubGod22]

Both sides at least talking about trying to do something. But they're nowhere close to eachother.

[Maggie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062501946.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Interesting take on climate change.

[RoyalShock]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Interesting take on climate change.

The common-sense approach.

The question I have is, how does the U.S. accomplish that through private enterprise? Deep government involvement doesn't solve problems, it only creates new ones.

I'm warming to the idea of an "X-Prize" model, where money isn't just handed over to some corporation or institution prior to accomplishment, but awarded after the stated goal is met.

[Maggie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

Interesting take on climate change.

The common-sense approach.

The question I have is, how does the U.S. accomplish that through private enterprise? Deep government involvement doesn't solve problems, it only creates new ones.

I'm warming to the idea of an "X-Prize" model, where money isn't just handed over to some corporation or institution prior to accomplishment, but awarded after the stated goal is met.

I am fine with awarding a monetary prize for an inventor that resolves a certain crucial problem. If fact, I think it is an effective way to resolve issues.

The problem is our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. are probably are not too keen on the idea as it takes power/influence away from them.

[RoyalShock]

The problem is our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. are probably are not too keen on the idea as it takes power/influence away from them.

Corporate and institutional lobbyists.

By institutional, I mean primarily colleges and universities.

[SubGod22]

Glenn Beck with John Coleman

Glenn Beck with RFK Jr.

John Coleman talking about suing Gore on Fox and Friends

Glenn Beck segment on Global Warming

[Ixiah]

A new report out today by an economist predicts $7/gallon gasoline by 2010.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/26/eveningnews/main4214022.shtml

[SubGod22]

Who knew that energy efficient lightbulbs made things interesting?