# time capsule



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Since I have a very good memory....and my liberal acquaintances don't, I wanted to document something here for posterity :lol:. Many have forgotten significant historical facts in recent times....i.e the economy at both ends of Clinton's reign (of terror  ...... :lol: ), so it is with that in mind I submit the following:

Slightly less than a week ago, just last weekend I believe, OPEC cut oil production to halt the falling price of crude, and I just filled my truck up today for $50 for the first time in 2 years. Gas is $2.24 today at BP....about the same as it was when the Pelosi-ots took over in 2006.

So let's watch and see what the new messiah does to that with his plans to reduce gas prices by implementing his God-send (or Allah-send  ) of an energy plan.

Aside from my sarcasm, this is a totally opinion-less post, posted soley to document the current status just days before the election.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Two weeks post-election and it's $1.83 at the same BP station.

Can't wait for Obama's new energy plan to kick in and lower it even more :wink:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

$1.61 today.

I was wondering, many have explained to me how $4 gas was Bush's fault, but I haven't heard any give him credit for the low prices now.

Any ideas?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

From the Desk of Walter E. Williams:

Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew's warning (19:24), "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Note: Dr. Williams penned this at the end of October ... oil is obviously less now than it was then (as also noted in the previous posts)

The entire article:

For the U.S. Congress, news media, pundits and much of the American public, a lot of economic phenomena can be explained by what people want, human greed and what seems plausible. I'm going to name this branch of economic "science" wackonomics and apply it to some of today's observations and issues.

Since July this year, crude oil prices have fallen from $147 to $64 a barrel. Similarly, average gasoline prices have fallen from over $4 to a national average of $2.69 a gallon. When crude oil and gasoline were reaching their historical highs, Congress and other wackoeconomists blamed it on greedy oil company CEOs in their lust for obscene profits. But what explains today's lower prices? The only answer, consistent with wackonomic theory, is easy: Oil company CEOs have lost their lust for obscene profits. Or, maybe, since many of these CEOs are getting up in years, they might have begun to heed Matthew's warning (19:24), "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

Speaking of CEOs, there's the "unconscionable," "obscene" salaries they receive, in some cases over $10 million a year. Wackonomics has an easy answer for these high salaries: it's greed. However, CEOs don't have the corner on greed. There are other greedy people we don't scorn but hold in high esteem. According to Forbes' Celebrity 100 list, Oprah Winfrey receives $275 million, Steven Spielberg gets $130 million, Tiger Woods $115 million, Jay Leno $32 million and Dr. Phil $40 million. I need to talk to these people and learn their strategy. I've been making every effort to get that kind of money. I go to bed greedy, dream greedy dreams, awaken greedy and proceed through the day greedy. Despite my heroic efforts, it's all been for naught; I earn a pittance by comparison.

Wackonomics can help us understand what some people call the income distribution. The logical extension of wackonomic thought is that the unequal or unfair distribution of income is the handiwork of a dollar dealer who distributes dollars. The dollar dealer might deal one person a million dollars a year while dealing most others a mere pittance like $10, $20 or $30 thousand a year. Thus, the reason why some people are wealthy while others are poor is because the dollar dealer is a racist, sexist, a multi-nationalist, or just plain mean. Economic justice requires a re-dealing of the dollars, income redistribution or spreading the wealth, where the government takes the ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners. Wackonomics might have a greed-based explanation for income inequality. There is a pile of money called income and greedy people got there first and took their unfair share. Similarly, economic justice requires a redistribution of income.

Wackonomics isn't just practiced by the uninitiated. This year's Nobel Laureate, Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman, after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, gave one rendition of wackonomics in his column "After the Horror," New York Times (9/14/01). Krugman wrote, "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack -- like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression -- could do some economic good." He went on to point out how rebuilding the destruction in New York and Washington, D. C., would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. For practitioners of non-wackonomics, this reasoning doesn't even pass the smell test. If Professor Krugman's vision is correct, and extending his logic, the terrorists would have made an even larger contribution to our economic well-being had they been able to fly a plane into the White House and destroyed buildings in other cities.

Wackonomics isn't all bad. There's an upside to it. It spares people the bother of having to understand the complexities of the world.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Csquared said:


> $1.61 today.
> 
> I was wondering, many have explained to me how $4 gas was Bush's fault, but I haven't heard any give him credit for the low prices now.
> 
> Any ideas?


I've noticed that for the past several years:

Anything bad = Bush's fault.

Anything good = Oh ****, let's keep our mouths shut and hope nobody notices.

huntin1


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Csquared said:


> $1.61 today.
> 
> I was wondering, many have explained to me how $4 gas was Bush's fault, but I haven't heard any give him credit for the low prices now.
> 
> Any ideas?


 :huh: demand is down perhaps?

I'd guess that the national recession, in conjuction with the global economic slow-down, has something to do with consumption for gas being down and therefore the price falling. So you're right, I do give Bush credit for the low gas prices :wink:

But, along the same lines, can we agree then that Obama has inherited an economy that is in recession? Or, at the very least, a slumping economy?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

seabass said:


> But, along the same lines, can we agree then that Obama has inherited an economy that is in recession? Or, at the very least, a slumping economy?


As long as we can also agree that it was not cuased by GWB.

It was the making Politicians insistent on extending very risky loans to folks who in the free market (and in the absence of government intervention) would have never been given these risky loans and put in the position they found themselves in.

GWB went to Congress in 2003 exposing this problem. He stated then that the exact things we are witnessing today would unfold. He was rebuffed roundly by the likes of Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Charles Rangle and many others.

I would not try to say Republicans share no guilt, but it is clear to me Democrates were the core proponent of things that lead the economy to this pitfall.

So ... I can agree with you ... if you can agree with me.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

DecoyDummy said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > But, along the same lines, can we agree then that Obama has inherited an economy that is in recession? Or, at the very least, a slumping economy?
> ...


I agree with you to an extent regarding the housing situation. I understand that there was pressure from congress to make home loans more doable for some folks. However, I think the bank is ultimately responsible for looking at a person's income and deciding if they were worth the risk...

At the very least, they should share some blame...


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

seabass said:


> I agree with you to an extent regarding the housing situation. I understand that there was pressure from congress to make home loans more doable for some folks. However, I think the bank is ultimately responsible for looking at a person's income and deciding if they were worth the risk...
> 
> At the very least, they should share some blame...


Not really ... You need to understand a little more about this thing ...

Lending institutions were under threat that Congress would audit their books and if a specified percentage of their loan portfolio DID NOT include these types of loans the lending institutions would be fined ... also lending institutions were handed the carrot of Government backing meaning Congress told them to fear not because in the event of failure the Government was backing the loans.

This is a situation which in a free market (and in the absence of Government intervention) ... these dynamics would never, in a million years, have happend.

If you look closely enough at how this all came to be you will find that those are the core dynamics and that it was primarily Democrate Polititians driving the bus.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we are coming close to a consensus. 

I notice liberals blame this on predatory lending, while I think it has as much or more to do with parasitic borrowing.

First people like Barney Franks demanded easier loans because the poor deserved homes too. I don't know how much the banks fought against these demands, but if they felt backed by government I am sure they didn't fight enough. That gave them the ability to implement predatory lending. With that anyone who could walk into a bank could get a loan. Enter the parasitic borrowers who thought "hey I can get a new home even though I have no intention of paying it off". Banks and irresponsible borrowers look now to the taxpayer to give them money. Let them all go bankrupt.

I'm ticked at Bush, but I will not blame him for a problem he tried to solve. Also, I don't want to see the guilty like Barney Franks get away without the public seeing what he has done. Lay the blame at the feet of those who are in reality the guilty parties no matter who they are, not just the people we don't like.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

It's hard for me to imagine that someone would go through the bother of getting a home loan that they had no intention of paying off. But, I guess it must happen.

When I went in for a home loan a few years ago, they (Wells Fargo) looked at my salary, my debt, and said you can spend up to X amount of money on a home loan. Seems like a straight-forward process.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> It's hard for me to imagine that someone would go through the bother of getting a home loan that they had no intention of paying off. But, I guess it must happen.
> 
> When I went in for a home loan a few years ago, they (Wells Fargo) looked at my salary, my debt, and said you can spend up to X amount of money on a home loan. Seems like a straight-forward process.


Yes, there are no banks in trouble in North Dakota. I have relatives in other states that say it's a mess. Right at the top of the mess again is California. I think they have nearly a 50% default.

This is all tough for you (seabass) and I to understand. Our mindset doesn't grasp such irrisponsibility. It's so out of whack with North Dakota standards that our first thought is this can't be true. Unfortunately the rest of the nation doesn't share our sense of responsibility. I suppose that's true of our surrounding neighbors also. Cut out the twin cities and that would include Minnesota too.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Any lender that had any intention of "carrying thier own paper" did not make these loans.

This is something done primarily through loan brokers who simply processed loans and promptly sold the paper. For the most part it was sold to and held by Fannie and Freddie. In most cases the process was done so fast that the trail would be difficult or impossible to audit in any meaningful way, but it sure made Maxine Waters happy.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

seabass said:


> It's hard for me to imagine that someone would go through the bother of getting a home loan that they had no intention of paying off.


I don't imagine many folks would get a loan with "no intention" of paying it off. But I'm sure that from the beginning all parties concerned were fully aware that the risk was high and that a certain/large quantity of borrowers were likely to default.

But lenders had quotas to meet and a government guarantee against the risk ... so forward the process went.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

The irony of this entire mess is that Government intervention is what made all this "regulation" they speak of necessary.

In the free market the regualtion is provided via the profit/loss motive and this sort of stuff would be extremely limited in scope and not an issue of Governmental concern.

Issues regarding fraud or other criminal behavior in lending is already covered under existing law.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

I know when I went in to get my home loan 5 years ago, they pre-approved me for almost triple of what I knew I could really afford. This is where people got in trouble, no down payments, and buying more house than they could actually afford, all in the name of "fairness" and polictical correctness.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I knew I'd be glad I did this. It seems the price of gas isn't a very popular discussion anymore.

Unless, however, it's to sing the praises and benefits of high prices


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Filled up my truck a few times on my way back from Lake of the woods.... $3.69 a gallon. So 22 gallons.....$81. Gas has about doubled in 4 years.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Chuck,

So how was LOW??? I am going back on the 16th.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Zogman...sent a pm so we can stay on track in the forum... :wink:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Yeah, the big O's energy plan is working fine. Unemployment is high, people have less available money than ever, but hey lets jack up the price of gas, that'll stimulate the economy. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------

