Bartman,

Were you addressing me? Some specificity would be helpful.

If so, I would like to point out that I've been warned of nothing of the sort before. In fact, after repeated bans without reasons given, I inquired about the reasons for the bans and the content which was judged unacceptable. I asked in chat. No response was ever given. I emailed two addresses. No response was ever given. I tried asking on the forums (given no other option). No response was ever given.

I'm all for being cordial, but the fact is I've never been informed of what rules I've supposedly broken. And this is despite going to great lengths to try to find out.

While I jab plenty, it's in jest and invariably paired with requests for more information/explanation, or requests that any case be made at all. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. While my language isn't always intended to make anyone feel warm inside, that's not what this forum is for. My purpose is always content-driven. Many posters' purposes aren't. My language is never malicious and disturbingly hateful. Many posters' is.

Bear in mind that rambling, whining, and personal attack posts w/o any points or arguments whatsoever are far more disrespectful than a little bit of language disparaging those posts and asking for better.

Regarding the content of this thread, there's no point equivocating over English grammar and basic logic. When a leader is asked if he wants something the people dread to happen and he says "well, I'd prefer it be gradual," everyone knows what this means. If someone chooses to pretend not to understand this (in the context of that leader and his appointees having stated, on the record, that they do want that thing which the people dread to happen), there's no point in debating the issue with them.

There is no "finite" supply of oil at the moment. The supply [as measured by production/time] can (and does) increase or decrease, just as demand can (and does). It is not "natural" for demand to increase more quickly than supply at this time, nor at any time projected within decades (or, perhaps, even centuries).

Demand is not measured against estimated total oil under the earth to determine price; it's measured against actual supply at this moment. This supply has plenty of room to increase many times over its current levels. The claim that it's "natural" for prices to rise because total oil supply might run low/out in 50 or 200 years is just silly.

[TI] Primo

If you have any response to the content I posted, I'll be happy to respond. Heck, if you want to explain what point you were trying to make in facetiously referring to the fact that rich people use fuel, I'm all ears. I'm happy to consider your points and respond, if you make any.

Bartman,

All evidence is that we have more than a "few" years before global oil supplies run out. All evidence is also that free markets motivate wondrous scientific advancements, such as ones which will replace oil as a convenient fuel source. All evidence is also that, as oil supplies even start to diminish or there's any fear that they soon will, free markets will reward those who innovate and replace oil as the most economical fuel.

If you have any evidence of government "investment" paying off, please share it. I keep asking for examples of what's advocated here actually helping people more than it harms them, but so far nobody's willing to enlighten me with any examples of their proposed action ever having benefited mankind or any particular people.

Obama has squashed oil drilling on public lands. This decreases supply. This increases prices. It's pretty obvious and beyond contention that Obama has raised prices. If supply and demand does not determine prices, please correct me.

Oil company profits are rather tiny. Of course they're huge, measured in dollars: They produce and refine a metric CRAP TON (I looked that up) of oil. But their profit margins aren't particularly large.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil-profit-margin-ranks-114-out-215.html

A lot of these profits benefit pension funds, individual investors, mutual funds, and IRAs.

http://whoownsbigoil.org/?gclid=CLzI_uaHrbMCFU-d4AodQxUAAg

Roast Beef Sammich,

As is obvious from the profit margins I just posted above and the MASSIVE amount of infrastructure [aka huge costs] required to be in business in oil, your claim that oil companies could sell no oil for a year and survive is obviously factually false. The people, equipment, and energy costs of their industry are massive. They have huge operating costs. You post as if you have no knowledge of their profit margins, yet have surprisingly firm conclusions. What do you base these conclusions on. I have explained why I think you're factually 100% wrong. Please refute this with the information you base your claims on.

Key,

If you honestly believe that, you should find an honest oil company or put together investors to make one. You'd make a killing underselling your conspiring competitors! If you're sure of what you say, it'd be sure profits!

What's stopping you?

Have you ever traded oil futures? Do you have any experience or knowledge to base your claims that speculators are driving up prices on? Do you understand that, if prices fall (when speculators bet high), speculators lose money? Speculators bet both ways. While it's not necessarily undesirable to regulate speculation, proclaiming that speculation is massively inflating gas prices is just ridiculous. There just isn't enough speculation for it mechanically to have such a significant impact on oil prices. And, again, betting the wrong way results in capital loss.