President Obama to Submit Plan to Congress to Curb Oil Market Manipulation

[txgran]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/04/17/obama_seeks_to_confront_oil_market_manipulation/


WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama wants Congress to strengthen federal supervision of oil markets, increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy traders must put behind their transactions.

Obama will unveil the $52 million plan Tuesday.

The White House plan is more likely to draw sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans than have an immediate effect on gasoline prices. The measures seek to boost spending for Wall Street enforcement at a time when congressional Republicans want to limit the reach of financial regulations.

Senior administration officials said the plan aims to deter illegal manipulation by energy speculators, the type of practices many Democrats blame for the high cost of gas. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plan ahead of Obama's announcement.

[Gregg]

The White House plan is more likely to draw sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans than have an immediate effect on gasoline prices.

First the Buffett Rule, now this. Oy vey. Divide further and conquer more.

Most of us already know that oil markets are highly speculative. All you have to do is watch the price when a hurricane is forecast in the gulf or Iran waves a flag. A big question is where does speculation cross the line and become manipulation? One problem Mr. Obama and crew have is that they have no jurisdiction over trading functions outside the US. And what they can exercise some control over (WTIC on the NY Merc, the strategic reserve, the Mayor of Cushing) isn't going to have much long term effect on the global market. Most of the significant traders in the US are multinational. If they have to back US trades with more assets they will simply take those trades, and the jobs they generate, off shore. Politically it might work because even though the little guy gets screwed the President looks like his champion. Now if the little guy ever starts paying attention and demands a REAL energy policy, well...

[txgran]

Well, Republicans are complaining and blaming Obama for the price of gas, now he is trying
to do something, putting the blame where it should be and Republicans are decrying that and will
vote it down.

The 'sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans' will be the deciding issue come November.

[Gregg]

Well, Republicans are complaining and blaming Obama for the price of gas, now he is trying
to do something, putting the blame where it should be and Republicans are decrying that and will
vote it down.

The 'sharp election-year distinctions with Republicans' will be the deciding issue come November.




Where the blame for "high gas prices"* belongs gets revealed in the fact that this country has no legitimate energy policy. No plan to decrease our dependence on sources that are not reliable. No contingency plan that would take us more than 60 days into a crisis if one arises. No plan to develop long term, large scale, sustainable, DOMESTIC resources. All that goes far beyond just Mr. Obama, but he has also done nothing to fix the problem. Any little $52 million band-aid plan is nothing more than jockeying for political position. The way to take global oil traders out of the wallets of US citizens is to develop as wide a variety of alternatives to their product as possible. This bill does nothing along those lines.

*It's also worth remembering that gas prices are actually artificially LOW because of the massive subsidy of the underlying crude oil prices by the US government. There are many economists who estimate gas prices would be anywhere from $6 to $15 per gallon or more without those subsidies.

[txgran]

You might want to read this.

http://www.winningprogressive.org/upset-about-rising-gas-prices-president-obama-not-the-gop-is-offering-solutions

[ApatheticNoMore]

MEH!! Ok let me say straight out I believe WE NEED higher gas prices. This is lameness. But speculation is not the best way to acheive that? Point well taken, but we need higher gas prices nontheless (besides of all things in financial markets to regulate, do we get the reinstantement of Glass-Stegal which bailout after bailout makes a STRONG case for? No we get nonsense about how low gas prices are an American entitlement forevah and any threat to this destroy the planet right is what must be top priority for regulation!). By the way if anyone wants to ask "but what about the effect of high gas prices on the poor?". Look point blank: you have some safety net offsets to offset this (if look ma, no safety net, is only supportable at all by externalities ad-infinitum you see how ridiculous and artificial that is right? A case can definitely be made that at least in the current economy no safety net is only supportable by endless externalities, but I'm sticking to petroleum here). Or really less directly: various carbon tax schemes SPECIFICALLY address this. Like all carbon is taxed at the point of extraction or import and you have a citizen dividend to refund the money (the end effect is intended to be only carbon is more expensive).

We already have an energy policy: WAR MORE WAR, WAR FOR OIL, WAR FOR PIPELINES, frack the planet, tar sands everything, drill the oceans, never mind a BP. We need a NEW plan! A plan where real options are discussed, a plan where you can mention the word: "alternative energy". And if Obama wants to go all campaigny on the oil industry, well ok, you know what I would like from him then? ALL direct government SUBSIDIES out of fossil fuels (I almost hoped that was what this thread was about! Oh naive me, even fake campaigny Obama isn't that kind of real environmentalist). Yes ending the indirect subsidies like war would be nice but seems entirely unachievable but can we at least end direct subsidies?


*It's also worth remembering that gas prices are actually artificially LOW because of the massive subsidy of the underlying crude oil prices by the US government. There are many economists who estimate gas prices would be anywhere from $6 to $15 per gallon or more without those subsidies.

direct subsidies (via Dept of Energy etc.), subsidies of war, subsidies of limited liability (BP) - oh I don't just mean as part of the corporate structure - I mean their payout is a disaster is limited by LAW), subsidies of not paying for externalities. Man, why does BP even have the *rights* to drill our oceans at all? At base why do they? But what theory of property rights do you even give them that, they don't improve the property, they destroy the oceans.

[Gregg]

Ok, serve and volley. Check it out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leD4QRojfR0). There will never be any shortage of ridiculously slanted articles and ads available to toss back and forth, but that's not a very high use of a forum, is it?

Americans have their heads in the sand regarding oil. They don't think about what it really does for us, where it really comes from, how its transported, how its used, what it takes to make it usable or anything else about it. It's just always there. Americans are in denial about the possibility of anything but the price changing. America's political elite, including the President, are better off keeping Americans in the dark because there just might be a revolt if we knew what the real cost of oil was and how little they've done to change it.

What do you think all that $15 trillion national debt is from? More than anything else its from wars that you might call senseless or unnecessary, but support every time you fill your tank (whether you know it or not). For example, a strategic view of some of the world's biggest oil fields is the ONLY reason we give a hoot about that otherwise worthless hunk of rock called Afghanistan. Do you think the cost of maintaining that presence is passed along to you at the pump or passed along to your grandkids? Your gas is cheap because it is subsidized with the future.

Oil prices are volatile because the geopolitical world is volatile. It is, for now, the most valuable commodity on the planet and most of it is in places that are politically unstable which threatens the supply to places that aren't. Speculators try make money off of that instability, but as a rule they don't create it. The President's plan is a band-aid on the finger of a patient that could have a massive stroke if it doesn't make some lifestyle changes pretty quickly. The cry of, "look, we stopped the bleeding on the finger" will garner some oohs and aahs, but will do nothing to save the patient because the cut that got patched up wasn't the threat in the first place.

[txgran]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/oil-subsidies-senate-president-obama_n_1387789.html

Here again..President Obama put forth a bill to end the subsidies and again Republicans voted it down.

If this is a bandaid, where is the Republican's plan, he is at least trying while Republican do nothing but
obstruct.

[ApatheticNoMore]

What about when he had a Democratic majority? Too many blue dogs or what? At a certain point, who can even care, I mean who can even care about all the excuses they have. If you want to argue lesser of two evils on this issue, fine, Republican politicians, for the most part, can't seem to acknowledge that environmental issues are even real - so honeslty how can you even make progress with that (and the R's would be a better saner party of they could just get this right but ....). But in the end run the only result we ever seem to get is the screwing of the planet will continue until ... morale improves? until we're all doomed? Why can't Obama use his bully pulpit to argue not for gas price reductions but for carbon taxes. Because it's an election year? This guy doens't even argue for that in non-election years. And no we're not ALL EQUALLY GUILTY, the powerful are far more guilty than man on the street filling his gas tank, they set the rules of the game.

[Gregg]

The funny thing is, if you look at what most learned and intelligent people are proposing for a national energy policy there would be far less environmental impact than continuing on our current course. The President had an opportunity to take the lead on that starting in January 2009. He chose to do nothing. A real plan will take a generation to implement and require trillions of dollars in investment. A $52 million dollar program targeting speculators is nothing more than a campaign ad paid for by the American taxpayers. It is not what I expect from our leaders. YMMV.

[ApatheticNoMore]

The funny thing is, if you look at what most learned and intelligent people are proposing for a national energy policy there would be far less environmental impact than continuing on our current course.

I would hope that any learned and intelligent people would be dead serious about environmental impact and put it pretty front and center! In fact hard to take them seriously if they aren't.


The President had an opportunity to take the lead on that starting in January 2009. He chose to do nothing. A real plan will take a generation to implement and require trillions of dollars in investment. A $52 million dollar program targeting speculators is nothing more than a campaign ad paid for by the American taxpayers. It is not what I expect from our leaders. YMMV.

It is precisely what I expect, though I hate that it is so. Who on the campaign trail is talking about the environment? The cost of fracking, of tar sands, of BP etc..

Some intelligent people seem to think that vast gains could be acheived just through really and truly insulating everyone's dwelling (that it is what the focus should be on rather than dead ends like recycling - recycling is ok, still better than not given overfilling local landfills, but doesnt' do enough for the effort and cost put into it compared to things like insulation). Of course if you save carbon via insulation etc. with no carbon policy (carbon taxes etc.), it very well might be used elsewhere.

[redfox]

MEH!! Ok let me say straight out I believe WE NEED higher gas prices. This is lameness. But speculation is not the best way to acheive that? Point well taken, but we need higher gas prices nontheless (besides of all things in financial markets to regulate, do we get the reinstantement of Glass-Stegal which bailout after bailout makes a STRONG case for? No we get nonsense about how low gas prices are an American entitlement forevah and any threat to this destroy the planet right is what must be top priority for regulation!). By the way if anyone wants to ask "but what about the effect of high gas prices on the poor?". Look point blank: you have some safety net offsets to offset this (if look ma, no safety net, is only supportable at all by externalities ad-infinitum you see how ridiculous and artificial that is right? A case can definitely be made that at least in the current economy no safety net is only supportable by endless externalities, but I'm sticking to petroleum here). Or really less directly: various carbon tax schemes SPECIFICALLY address this. Like all carbon is taxed at the point of extraction or import and you have a citizen dividend to refund the money (the end effect is intended to be only carbon is more expensive).

We already have an energy policy: WAR MORE WAR, WAR FOR OIL, WAR FOR PIPELINES, frack the planet, tar sands everything, drill the oceans, never mind a BP. We need a NEW plan! A plan where real options are discussed, a plan where you can mention the word: "alternative energy". And if Obama wants to go all campaigny on the oil industry, well ok, you know what I would like from him then? ALL direct government SUBSIDIES out of fossil fuels (I almost hoped that was what this thread was about! Oh naive me, even fake campaigny Obama isn't that kind of real environmentalist). Yes ending the indirect subsidies like war would be nice but seems entirely unachievable but can we at least end direct subsidies?



direct subsidies (via Dept of Energy etc.), subsidies of war, subsidies of limited liability (BP) - oh I don't just mean as part of the corporate structure - I mean their payout is a disaster is limited by LAW), subsidies of not paying for externalities. Man, why does BP even have the *rights* to drill our oceans at all? At base why do they? But what theory of property rights do you even give them that, they don't improve the property, they destroy the oceans.


+ 1