🇺🇸Father Trump Talk-🚨The Official Thread of the Week Magaverse🚨 HAPPY CINCO DEPORTO!

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I did. I don’t think that makes me irrational.

No not at all. In addition you’re also horrible. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

Oh.  So more supply makes the price of things go up  now? When did that change? 

[The Real timschochet 6,444]

Let’s be honest: another way to lower gas prices is to end the Ukraine war. It’s the biggest reason by far for the high gas prices and inflation in general. 
 

However we can’t end the war until Russia withdraws. A defeat for Ukraine is not a price we can afford to pay. 

[Mark Davis 339]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Sure they are. But I don’t believe we can affect the overall price through our own actions. If you do we’re going to have to agree to disagree. 

We can disagree, but I'm just pointing out that you argued on one hand that the Saudi's can prop up price by constraining supply, but refuse to acknowledge that more supply from the US would have the opposite impact.  It's not a logical belief and I suspect politics out of this that you realize that.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

11 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Your referenced article discusses more about time needed for the impact to be felt.  The quotes it uses from industry sources talk mostly about lead time for impacts to be felt.  There's no doubt they are capital projects and would take time to get new sites off the ground or old sites active.

And there is nothing the federal govt can do, right?

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Let’s be honest: another way to lower gas prices is to end the Ukraine war. It’s the biggest reason by far for the high gas prices and inflation in general. 
 

However we can’t end the war until Russia withdraws. A defeat for Ukraine is not a price we can afford to pay. 

Hmmm.  If only there were another country with massive amounts of oil not being used that could make up for the shortfall. 

[Horseman 2,369]

As if we needed yet more proof that Tim is an idiot. 

[The Real timschochet 6,444]

11 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

We can disagree, but I'm just pointing out that you argued on one hand that the Saudi's can prop up price by constraining supply, but refuse to acknowledge that more supply from the US would have the opposite impact.  It's not a logical belief and I suspect politics out of this that you realize that.

It’s not inconsistent. The Saudis can affect the probe temporarily as a reaction to what we do. We can affect the price temporarily as a reaction to what they do. But we’re simply responding to each other and in the end it’s just a merry go round. 
 

I honestly don’t care about politics when it comes to economics. If in this instance, or in any instance, Republican ideas are better than Democratic ideas, I’m happy to go with them. 

[Strike 5,214]

5 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

We can’t fill our need domestically. If we try, the Saudis will simply decrease their output so that the prices stay where they are or go up. Thats the situation we’re stuck with until we get off oil. 

 

50 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I read your article. It makes a lot of sense. It’s argument that the Saudis can do little to affect oil prices is consistent with mine-  no country can do much to afffect prices because other countries respond. That’s why it’s a global market. The argument your article makes in no way contradicts the one I linked. 
 

 

 

These two statements are NOT consistent with each other.  This tangent is like trying to explain economics to Forrest Gump.   BTW, my article absolutely contradicts you because it is showing exactly how the U.S. increasing output affected oil prices.  And, unlike the articles you and PedoTardBoy are posting, it's not just speculation.  It's actually what happened. 

[shadrap 222]

4 hours ago, Strike said:

The link I posted showed exactly what happened when we produced more oil, AND OPEC tried to influence the market by reducing their output.  The results pretty much destroy your argument.  I'm guessing you didn't read the link I posted.

of course he didn't.  He relied on a climate activist for his oil comments.

[shadrap 222]

1 hour ago, Mark Davis said:

Internationally traded commodities are still subject to the laws of supply and demand.  You can't just wave off supply and demand because something is a commodity.  Do you recall the oil price war between OPEC and Russia and what occurred?   That's a perfect example, especially from the demand side.  There are examples of the supply side as well, you've even argued for them as for what might occur if we produced more, such as if the Saudis/OPEC cut production.  

someone gets it.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,242]

Ukraine  

[The Real timschochet 6,444]

24 minutes ago, shadrap said:

someone gets it.

Sorry to interrupt the echo chamber in here but you’re wrong. Almost all of you are wrong. Only GutterBoy seems to get it. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

20 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry to interrupt the echo chamber in here but you’re wrong. Almost all of you are wrong. Only GutterBoy seems to get it. 

Well, that’s your opinion. But what’s not an opinion is that Trump was convicted of sexual assault. That’s just a lie you’ve been telling. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

27 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry to interrupt the echo chamber in here but you’re wrong. Almost all of you are wrong. Only GutterBoy seems to get it. 

Yeah I'm with you, mostly.  You're correct in that strikes own article supports what you said.  If we increase output, the OPEC could/would cut output, so the net supply doesn't change, thus manipulating the market.  This is what happened in 2017 as highlighted in strikes article.

Where we disagree is if OPEC would actually do this, I don't know.  They could, but is speculation.  Same way strike is speculating that they won't.

Where I was coming from was looking at this holistically, we're not getting greater supply because the oil companies don't want to invest, and saying drill baby drill is an empty directive.  It's much more complex than this, but the smooth brains hear drill baby drill and think that means $2 gas.

[Mark Davis 339]

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

And there is nothing the federal govt can do, right?

Sure.  Specifically what do you want them to do?  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

Sure.  Specifically what do you want them to do?  

Trump said drill baby drill.  What is he gonna do?

[Mark Davis 339]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Trump said drill baby drill.  What is he gonna do?

I don't know what he plans to do other than the leases and ease the rhetoric on crippling their industry.  As a former financial analyst for a mining company, those things do matter when deciding to commit to a large capital expenditure that 30 year return models are ran on in order to justify.  However, that wasn't the discussion.  We were discussing the economic theory about why it's advantageous to have production occur domestically rather than by the Saudis, Maduro, Putin, etc.  I'll stand by that, and from my understanding we make it cleaner than they do as well so there should be an incremental climate benefit to U.S. production.  

But I'll ask you the question Tim wouldn't answer.  If I agree with you above that any vacuum in supply is filled by OPEC/Venezuela/Russia, we agree on demand being a constant, where would you prefer we get it from, send our cash, and cede those jobs?  Because if production leaves the U.S., by default one of those places I just named pick the volume up. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

11 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I don't know what he plans to do other than the leases and ease the rhetoric on crippling their industry.  As a former financial analyst for a mining company, those things do matter when deciding to commit to a large capital expenditure that 30 year return models are ran on in order to justify.  However, that wasn't the discussion.  We were discussing the economic theory about why it's advantageous to have production occur domestically rather than by the Saudis, Maduro, Putin, etc.  I'll stand by that, and from my understanding we make it cleaner than they do as well so there should be an incremental climate benefit to U.S. production.  

But I'll ask you the question Tim wouldn't answer.  If I agree with you above that any vacuum in supply is filled by OPEC/Venezuela/Russia, we agree on demand being a constant, where would you prefer we get it from, send our cash, and cede those jobs?  Because if production leaves the U.S., by default one of those places I just named pick the volume up. 

I'll answer your question, the US obviously.  I have no problem drilling and/or producing more oil.  My point was that Trump saying drill baby drill won't make that happen, and it's not gonna fix inflation like he said it would.  Basically it was a terrible answer that only appeals to the dumbest segment of the population 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

11 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I'll answer your question, the US obviously.  I have no problem drilling and/or producing more oil.  My point was that Trump saying drill baby drill won't make that happen, and it's not gonna fix inflation like he said it would.  Basically it was a terrible answer that only appeals to the dumbest segment of the population 

Sure.  Cutting the cost to produce and ship goods won’t have any affect on the price of those goods.

[Mark Davis 339]

18 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I'll answer your question, the US obviously.  I have no problem drilling and/or producing more oil.  My point was that Trump saying drill baby drill won't make that happen, and it's not gonna fix inflation like he said it would.  Basically it was a terrible answer that only appeals to the dumbest segment of the population 

Fair enough.  We can disagree on the government's role but that's fine.  I think government stances do matter when a project goes before the board of a corporation to approve an eight figure project to start a new site.  Admittedly it's not the only concern, possibly the greatest hurdle is price uncertainty from not being able to control OPEC production.  Given that OPEC's variable production cost is much lower than domestic operations, it's always a concern that they could start a production/price war to, for lack of a better analogy "Wal Mart" their way to market dominance by running other producers out of business.  So I'll agree it's not 100% something the government can control.  I just think at the very least we should not be hindering it from a policy/rhetoric standpoint.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

4 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Fair enough.  We can disagree on the government's role but that's fine.  I think government stances do matter when a project goes before the board of a corporation to approve an eight figure project to start a new site.  Admittedly it's not the only concern, possibly the greatest hurdle is price uncertainty from not being able to control OPEC production.  Given that OPEC's variable production cost is much lower than domestic operations, it's always a concern that they could start a production/price war to, for lack of a better analogy "Wal Mart" their way to market dominance by running other producers out of business.  So I'll agree it's not 100% something the government can control.  I just think at the very least we should not be hindering it from a policy/rhetoric standpoint.

Oil companies don't care about rhetoric, they care about money.  They have the opportunity to increase production, govt isn't hindering anything right now.

[Mark Davis 339]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Oil companies don't care about rhetoric, they care about money.  They have the opportunity to increase production, govt isn't hindering anything right now.

Money is all that matters in the end.  Rhetoric matters when running a 30 year model on IRR for a mining company to approve those capital projects needed that take months/years to begin as mentioned in those earlier articles.  Rhetoric adds uncertainty and forces what we used to call incremental case models to be ran.  Those use varying future assumptions such as extra costs, government leases not being renewed, etc.  I'm not sitting in those board rooms today, but I used to run models for those type meetings in the past.  I can't fathom that discounts to projected IRR aren't being put on summary pages for these corporations due to risk of governmental action if a regime hostile to the industry is in power at any given point.  If I conceded to you that today the government is doing nothing to hinder them and is only speaking rhetorically, what I said is still true because the rhetoric makes them fear future action and dampens investment.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

8 hours ago, Mark Davis said:

Money is all that matters in the end.  Rhetoric matters when running a 30 year model on IRR for a mining company to approve those capital projects needed that take months/years to begin as mentioned in those earlier articles.  Rhetoric adds uncertainty and forces what we used to call incremental case models to be ran.  Those use varying future assumptions such as extra costs, government leases not being renewed, etc.  I'm not sitting in those board rooms today, but I used to run models for those type meetings in the past.  I can't fathom that discounts to projected IRR aren't being put on summary pages for these corporations due to risk of governmental action if a regime hostile to the industry is in power at any given point.  If I conceded to you that today the government is doing nothing to hinder them and is only speaking rhetorically, what I said is still true because the rhetoric makes them fear future action and dampens investment.  

So you worked in energy? Big whup. Gutterboy works in IT and has a minor in finance.  I’d say you’re a bit out of your depth on this one. 

[League Champion 1,896]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Big whup. Gutterboy works in IT

And is an expert in Kid/Tranny Relations. 

[MDC 7,142]

On 5/14/2023 at 8:23 AM, League Champion said:

I don't know about the rape part but he did admit to showering with Children 

No he didn’t. You’re either getting your Geeks mixed up or just flat lying.

[Hawkeye21 2,382]

On 5/14/2023 at 7:21 AM, Rosie O'Donnell said:

And showers with his kids and rapes them 

WTF?  I know we can get away with a lot here but I think this one crosses the line.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

WTF?  I know we can get away with a lot here but I think this one crosses the line.

Well it looks like they're gone, and his racist animal thread got locked, and we haven't been spammed with BS posts.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

On 5/13/2023 at 6:42 PM, The Real timschochet said:

Sorry to interrupt the echo chamber in here but you’re wrong. Almost all of you are wrong. Only GutterBoy seems to get it. 

When Gutterboy is the only person agreeing with you, that’s usually a good indication that you should recheck your position.

[The Real timschochet 6,444]

Just now, Patented Phil said:

When Gutterboy is the only person agreeing with you, that’s usually a good indication that you should recheck your position.

In this forum it’s an indication, for me, that I can be pretty comfortable with my position. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, Patented Phil said:

When Gutterboy is the only person agreeing with you, that’s usually a good indication that you should recheck your position.

Feel free to bring your brain for rebuttal if you wish.

[Horseman 2,369]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye21 said:

WTF?  I know we can get away with a lot here but I think this one crosses the line.

I found the rat.

[Hawkeye21 2,382]

4 minutes ago, Horseman said:

I found the rat.

I'm assuming you think I reported him.  I did not.  I saw the post for the first time right before I posted that.

[Horseman 2,369]

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm assuming you think I reported him.  I did not.  I saw the post for the first time right before I posted that.

You're probably right.  It's usually gutterboy that reports people he disagrees with.  

[HellToupee 1,594]

12 minutes ago, Horseman said:

I found the rat.

I believe Hawkeye. Remember now , squistion posts here

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

20 minutes ago, Horseman said:

You're probably right.  It's usually gutterboy that reports people he disagrees with.  

I’d go with this. There’s just too many times that Gutterboy is in the vicinity of a banning.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

39 minutes ago, Horseman said:

You're probably right.  It's usually gutterboy that reports people he disagrees with.  

I didn't report it.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

19 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’d go with this. There’s just too many times that Gutterboy is in the vicinity of a banning.  

Who got banned?

[HellToupee 1,594]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

I didn't report it.

I believe you , remember now, squistion posts here

[squistion 1,956]

22 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I believe you , remember now, squistion posts here

I have yet to report anyone in this forum, which can be verified by the moderator.