Member Info for Love_You

Can this data be trusted?

http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

For instance crude rose by 2.8 million barrels and propane/propylene by 0.5 million barrels = increase of 3.3 million barrels.

However, gasoline stocks fell by 2.9 million barrels, and distillate stocks by 2.1 million barrels = decrease of 5 million barrels.

Hence, overall change = 3.3 million barrels (minus) 5.0 million barrels = an overall decrease of 1.7 million barrels.

Yet the EIA report officially states that the overall change was an increase of 0.1 million barrels.

Hence why the discrepancy between the numbers in the official figures by the EIA (which is only one page long)?

Can this data be trusted?

http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/wpsrsummary.pdf

For instance crude rose by 2.8 million barrels and propane/propylene by 0.5 million barrels = increase of 3.3 million barrels.

However, gasoline stocks fell by 2.9 million barrels, and distillate stocks by 2.1 million barrels = decrease of 5 million barrels.

Hence, overall change = 3.3 million barrels (minus) 5.0 million barrels = an overall decrease of 1.7 million barrels.

Yet the EIA report officially states that the overall change was an increase of 0.1 million barrels.

Hence why the discrepancy between the numbers in the official figures by the EIA (which is only one page long)?

Could a recession be good for oil demand? If you think about it from a cause-and-effect perspective rather than a correlational perspective. Just an idea but personally I think economic stability is what is bad for oil demand - hence a recession could cause a bit more activity in the housing market - it also might encourage some businesses to invest if they feel others collapsing have opened up a bigger potential market to them. Obviously one business replacing another in the same sector is fairly oil neutral - but the period of change, when workers need to relocate, then offices/warehouses need to be closed and new ones opened, would perhaps lead to a temporary period of increased oil demand. Hence I'm not very worried about a recession personally as I think there are bigger worries regarding oil demand - and that is economic regulation and basically the government imposing things on people that they don't actually want (such as tiny under-powered cars instead of a nice sensible 1.9Tdi).

I enjoyed the chat on here - Adam Smith and the role of government, the paradox of communist inefficiency (and that central planning led to horrible looking mono-culture towns), and people giving back to their community - chairperson of local sports clubs. Thanks to all for an interesting discussion. And I must say that I don't have a clue how to square the potential benefits of de-regulation with trying to prevent fraud as to be honest I lost a small fortune when Afren went bankrupt due to fraud - I though having made the world's third largest oil discovery in 2013 that they were going to have enough scale to ride out the ups-and-downs of the oil market. Also the shallow waters offshore Nigeria were meant to be one of the lowest cost places in the world to produce from - yes I was perhaps young and naive but it still hurt to lose so much when I thought that this investment was a win-win, helping to support global economic growth, for which I expected a decent return - but ended up losing everything.

I'm just enjoying Nowhere Man by the Beatles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scSwaKbE64

One could argue Google commits fraud by making it impossible for an individual (or even a company) to be sure that their intellectual property is not somewhere on the web, available to others for free, but unbeknownst to the creators/IP holders.

This is surely an infringement of a person's human rights - that one can never be sure that one's intellectual property is not somewhere on Google but in a place which makes it every unlikely that one would ever find it oneself without hours/days of searching. And then it could just reappear the day after it is taken down. So ultimately Google is taking away citizens peace of mind for it's own financial gain - that could be interpreted as fraud by some definitions as nobody every voted to give it permission to do this....it was never given to the citizens as a choice in a manifesto or even for a citizen's vote. Google just appeared without hardly any debate about the huge economic winners and losers it would very quickly create over the forthcoming years.

Also CrowCast why on Earth would you want to regulate for seatbelts?? - People who won't pay for seatbelts are muppets - and as most people would be willing to pay for them then any free-market would provide them without needing regulation to do so..

Hence seatbelts would have arisen even if an economy with zero regulation - just from a mixture of basic economics and people's natural instinct not to die.

Crowcast it shouldn't need to be the case that copyright is needed to stop Facebook/Google/Amazon ripping off artwork, headlines and the business of artisan designers. What's occurring here is financial fraud by Facebook/Google/Amazon and others if they are taking people's work and re-selling is as open source but taking a profit for themselves (if the original creator never intended for it to be open source).

I think any regulation which treats people as though they are stupid is bad regulation.

For example there shouldn't be any regulation about the wattage size of electrical appliances - if you use more energy you should pay more in terms of your energy bill (this regulation wasn't needed as supply-demand should be managed by prices in a free-market).

Also food standards regulation is probably not needed as it stops people setting up businesses selling food out of their garages for example. I would much prefer to visit an unregulated food business that has glass walls, everything on display, and a large LCD screen outside showing the food-making process, over a food business that has a hygiene certificate nearly a year old and which has opaque walls between the customers and the food preparation area (because anything could be going on behind the scenes couldn't it - just because they have a certificate doesn't mean they stick to those standards for the rest of the year when they are very unlikely to be randomly inspected with no notice).

However this will clearly not encourage anyone to invest when you know that banks are in effect going to be losing money at the rate of 0.4% per year - which is what is taken off them by the ECB. Hence if businesses won't invest then banks can't lend - hence even more of their money has to be parked at the ECB to have a haircut of 0.4% per year. Of course this is a negative cycle or "doom-loop" because knowing this is happening makes it more likely that everyone involved won't invest meaning this cycle is the least bad option - meaning everyone is resigned to losing 0.4% of their wealth per year and knowing that this is bound to be negative for the wider economy - hence everyone knows it would be madness to try and start a business in a long-term economic decline - hence the "doom-loop" which the ECB has created is self-perpetuating until they stop charging people for parking funds at the ECB.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-policy-rates/ecb-studying-tiered-deposit-rate-to-alleviate-banks-plight-sources-idUKKCN1R81B3

I wonder whether the Bank of England has created a similar "doom loop" in the UK. I don't think they actually have negative interest rates for "parked funds". However very low interest rates could be giving out a similar message - that they economy is in a managed decline, hence nobody would rationally start a business, hence why Bank of England can't raise rates (not for the last 10 years). However if the low rates are causing this cycle, whereby they can never be raised because they are making things worse each year rather than better, then was this a policy mistake not to star raising rates in 2013 for example. Surely 4 years of ultra-low (zero) rates was enough time for banks to sort out problem borrowers and re-jig the economy - anything more and it just smacks of the kind of system that can't free itself of doom loops once it has got itself into a cycle of low expectations/low ambition.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-ecb-policy-rates/ecb-studying-tiered-deposit-rate-to-alleviate-banks-plight-sources-idUKKCN1R81B3

So after 10 please the ECB is just starting to wonder about how to address the "side-effects" of it monetary policy?

If you believe that then expect to see pigs flying across the sky today.

I think they knew about these side-effects from before they first implemented the policy back in 2009. Only the effects of these side-effects is to reduce economic growth by gradually removing money from the financial system (albeit only slowly at the rate of 0.4% per year).

However this will clearly not encourage anyone to invest when you know that banks are in effect going to be losing money at the rate of 0.4% per year - which is what is taken off them by the ECB. Hence if businesses won't invest then banks can't lend - hence even more of their money has to be parked at the ECB to have a haircut of 0.4% per year. Of course this is a negative cycle or "doom-loop" because knowing this is happening makes it more likely that everyone involved won't invest meaning this cycle is the least bad option - meaning everyone is resigned to losing 0.4% of their wealth per year and knowing that this is bound to be negative for the wider economy - hence everyone knows it would be madness to try and start a business in a long-term economic decline - hence the "doom-loop" which the ECB has created is self-perpetuating until they stop charging people for parking funds at the ECB.

Are we still getting fresh tomatoes/cucumbers from Spain?

Struggling to see if we get value from the EU - sometimes think it is just gentlemen farmers wanting to maintain their subsidies from the EU for doing nothing whilst a quarter of Europe starves or returns to subsistence agri-culture.

But if we leave with no deal think about what should logically happen to the pound-dollar exchange rate - and who earns their revenue/profits in dollars (you don't have to look far, wink, wink)?

Also if we do remain then all of the uncertainty will be perceived to have been removed by people who can't see that uncertainty=opportunity. If you are really all in cash you have just told the market that you will be buying back in, in a few months time - probably at a higher price because you were slow.

Can't we just have more QE - it's not fair that they got bailed out in 2009 and then the people that invested subsequently have been stitched up - if employment is really great why isn't the government happy with the people who invested post 2009 - and if so why can't the Bank of England print some more money and make everyone whole on their investments up to £4 as a minimum - okay if you invested over 400p you might never see a return here as that was probably a tad optimistic with Barclays fighting so many lawsuits against the mighty USA.

Diane Birch - FOOLS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRZC4G1oIag

Actually I'm not sure about increasing government spending - a little more spending on infrastructure, and resurfacing b/c roads would be a good thing. New railway lines out from the SouthEast to Northumbria, Cumbria and the Welsh Coastline would also be good. However I believe that doctors are paid enough already as they got a 30% increase under the previous Labour government (as well as having to do less hours - they were definitely massive winners under Tony Bliar/Bordon Gworn).

And keep encouraging the oil-and-gas industry as cooking on gas is a fantastic experience and most chefs would agree it's by far better than electric, or a coal fire.

Also BP has been doing wonders offshore Angola - perhaps a bit of encouragement to keep up the good work in Iraq also. Also maybe encourage BP to think about opening up the far North in Russia/Northern Siberia - this could be a massive new area for the oil and gas industry if the early reports are confirmed - definitely has potential for further investigation anyway - Russia always been culturally/intellectually advanced and friendly to the UK - it just gets a bad press bu doesn't reflect the reality of history nor their cultural/intellectual heritage.

"Just what is it that you want?" We want to be FREE - We want to be FREE to do what WE WANT to DO! Loaded - Primal Scream. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf73xqZvk6k

Laurent Wold- No Stress - That's the way I want to spend my day (roaring across Tuscany in a Ferrari) and I don't care about no stupid people in Brussels trying to take away my human rights - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoQYdA08DYo

BoomerBower - the more you write the more I like your comments - an efficient economy is a completely de-regulated economy - the sooner the UK aims for that the better - let the people build prosperity by themselves - it is a better option than having people like CrowCast sitting around criticising others whilst dreaming of going back to the stone-age with everything limited to 12 mph, gas cookers banned, and all cars running off sunflower oil crushed by foot.

For Christ's sake just increase government spending and let the economy do what it's going to do - you're killing the people you idiots.

Just buy a nice Subaru, Aston Martin or Ferrari now - it will do you for the next ten years.

Garages will exist in my opinion in future - mechanics love nice cars, most would prefer serving a Ferrari to a Tesla. Aston Martin will be easy to service due to its British heritage. And any high-street garage will have the skills/technology to work on a Subaru.

Instead of stocking up with food maybe bring the family's car purchases forward to between 2019-2022. And then expect to run those cars until 2030 or even longer - because trust me speed-limited cars will not be popular for long, it will just be a fad - people who maintain and service proper cars will be quids in, in the future. I bet the value will fall out of the bottom of speed limited cars after about 2 years - and proper cars that are two years old (before the new regulations came into effect) will be worth more than an equivalent model of a brand new speed-limited car. I mean nobody really wants to have everything dictated by some crappy institution hundreds of miles away. I preach freedom for the people and I'm proud to preach it.

"Just what is it that you want?" We want to be FREE - We want to be FREE to do what WE WANT to DO! Loaded - Primal Scream. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf73xqZvk6k

Laurent Wold- No Stress - That's the way I want to spend my day (roaring across Tuscany in a Ferrari) and I don't care about no stupid people in Brussels trying to take away my human rights - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoQYdA08DYo

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/proposed-offshore-drilling-ban-legislation-criticised-ahead-of-dail-vote-913485.html

Shouldn't issues like this be put directly to the people?

When people choose products they are in effect voting - I vote to spend £80 on option A or I'll pay £100 for option B.

However, the choice of having option A or B will be affected if new oilfields are not given approval for development.

Hence why should MPs or representatives be the decision makers on economic matters when the traditionally precedent is for each citizen to vote daily on the economy (every purchasing choice an individual makes is an economic vote).

Hence with smartphones surely the people of Eire could be asked directly the question:

Are you in favour, or against, Eire continuing to develop its natural oil-and-gas resources on a commercial basis?

The company would certainly make money if they could just get on with employing staff to extract the oil and gas.

What's frustrating is to see that people who would prefer the economy to suffer, and for the oil never to be extracted, to be claiming the moral high ground. What's moral about denying people economic prosperity - cars, holidays, opportunities to travel the world, and the chance for more business activity within Eire itself?

I would say cigarette manufacturers get less bad press than the oil industry ...and cigarettes seem to be a lot more directly harmful to people's health than extracting oil in a timely fashion to keep the economy growing and to provide people with a good standard of living (good food, healthy choices, cars to get to work, vans for tradespeople, lorries for businesses, and travel for the majority, obviously with more luxury high-end options for the wealthier).

I just can't understand the mentality of people who would prefer everyone to become poorer just so that the oil isn't extracted which will undoubtedly make a few people rich but will also provide a boost to the economic opportunities for millions of people with the estimated (Euro)11 Billion in direct tax revenues predicted from the Barryoe oil-and-gas project going ahead (and then there are all the other indirect tax revenues from VAT on fuel, services, and tax from the new jobs created).

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/thomas-cook-shut-21-stores-101604843.html

You say he has already wiped £8 million off the costs per year.

Well he needs to wipe £400 million off the costs per year to make this a profitable business.

So another £392 million to go ... good job he has only been in the job a few weeks ... he's hardly even started the task yet...

Also you need to account for falling revenues in future ...sacking staff means less people taking holidays with Thomas Cook in the future.

Also I can't help but feel that if you cut too much then you cut your own throat ...get rid of the wrong staff (those with ambition) and you will find they have started a new online holiday business that is able to do it cheaper and better than the service TCG aims to provide. Hence every cut comes with a risk .... and another £392 million of annual cost savings still needed.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/thomas-cook-shut-21-stores-101604843.html

You say he has already wiped £8 million off the costs per year.

Well he need to wipe £400 off the costs per year to make this a profitable business.

So another £392 million to go ... good job he has only been in the job a few weeks ... he's hardly even started the task yet...

Also you need to account for a falling revenue in future ...sacking staff means less people taking holidays with Thomas Cook in the future.