Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Because I can only type so much, and it's better IMHO to use concrete examples when possible. But the principle still holds true if you extend it to all seasonal produce.
|
A rational argument. I agree, typing and 'playing defense' can become tiring.
Quote:
|
Also, here in the West we don't get seasonal produce from many different countries, at least not at the same point in the season.
|
Now that we understand your location, it makes sense. Probably in Nevada there is less market for fresh produce, due to cost and the nature of the demand. Much of the added cost of anything comes from shipping it. Most of what you are buying cheaply comes from local production (which lowers the cost). When everything is produced other than locally, we might be at the mercy of the locus of the producers, however distant, plus the increased cost of transport. Welcome to the new world of Globalization.
Quote:
|
Yes, that IS the point you made. It may not be what you INTENDED, but it's what came across. I don't believe I ignored what you wrote about cartels, I said that it's irrelevant, because at the consumer end it doesn't matter, it's supply & demand.
|
No, it DOES matter, because whether you restrict the supply or increase the demand,
either will raise the price. That's NOT irrelevant at all.
Quote:
|
You've also reversed cause & effect: inflation will cause prices of most things to rise, but rising prices are not necessarily due to inflation.
|
Agreed...
Quote:
|
...Besides, the prices of most things aren't rising, certainly not to the same extent as gas...
|
Yes, "the prices of most things" ARE rising. Stay tuned. You'll see the overall increase soon. (Or you might already have, viewed over time.)
The cause doesn't matter. It's still inflation of prices.
Quote:
|
...and many things, like hard disk storage, are decreasing in price.
|
Yes, I know. That's due to technological advancement (also predictable, and expected). But, that too has finite limits. (As I expect you also know.)
Quote:
|
Sorry, but that's just baloney. If you want to sign on to the infinite supply of oil fantasy, there's no point in discussion.
|
I don't dispute the finite nature of the limits of anything. But you are confusing or equating finiteness with
sufficiency or
availability. There is a difference, and it is important. The qualities are not the same.
Quote:
|
What was the trigger for this latest oil price increase? Removal of Libyan supplies from the market, no? Which is a decrease in supply
|
.
That is probably the reason for the latest, current market spike. But the overall price trend over time is UP. Which means that after the current spike abates, you still will be paying more. So the predominant factor is not that of the price spike. That's merely a diversion, or a red herring (if you will).
Quote:
|
Nope. It's a simple mechanical problem. Given X number of pumps of a given horsepower, connected to Y number of wells, pipelines, etc, there is a maximum rate at which the oil can be pumped. Can't pump faster unless you buy more pumps, drill more wells, and lay more pipelines.
|
Glad to see you put aside the childish analogy, so we can agree now.
Quote:
|
If indeed there are more "shakes" around. But they're getting harder & harder to find (something I know first-hand, 'cause a good part of my income these last few years has been writing seismic tomography code used in oil & mineral exploration), and it get more & more expensive to drill the wells &c.
|
But any increased expense of exploration involved has to do (again) with inflation. The technology is improving, but the cost is greater.
Quote:
|
How much did that Gulf well cost to drill, even without the blowout?
|
I don't know. Why should you or I care about how much it cost BP to drill it? Hey, if it weren't profitable, they wouldn't have drilled it. Would they?
Quote:
|
All goes into the price, you know.
|
Yes, and they get to pay for their mistakes and clean up the mess they made, which is entirely as it should be. What more do you want in reparations? Blood? "A pound of flesh"? Or do you want a permanent moratorium: meaning no more exploration or offshore drilling? To serve WHAT or WHOSE purpose?
Just what is your agenda?
Quote:
|
It's your assumption that SA is still on top of a sea of oil, and doesn't have it poked full of as many straws as it will hold already. But even if this was the case, why should they? They have a resource which, however large it may actually be, is still finite. Increasing demand &c makes it very likely that the price will keep going up for the foreseeable future, so it's simply not to their long-term economic benefit to pump faster, when they can hold back and sell later at a higher price.
|
Yep, you've got it now. It's all about money, politics and controlling the global market.
They are acting in their own self-interest, which is not only economic but also nationalistic, ethnic, and religious. They aren't doing it to "save the planet". Only naive or politically indoctrinated Americans spout that idealistic claptrap.
Quote:
|
No, I did not say that. I said you need hundreds of millions of dollars to buy "a huge tract of land". To me, "huge" means at least several square miles. Around here it's not at all hard to find decent land priced at over $100K/acre.
|
Then I will say to you "move elsewhere". Just as you arrogantly suggested concerning those who live any distance from their employment should do, or those who choose to live flood zones, whether they be in ancient Japan or current New Jersey.
Quote:
|
Speak for yourself. I'd call a hundred acres pretty minimal, myself.
|
Okay. I live in suburban NY, near the city. My lot is about 60 x 100 and my house is more than amply large to accommodate a typical family.
Why do you feel a NEED for 100 acres or more upon which to live? Do you have a need to be alone, away from society? Or do you just envy anyone who builds a large new home on a small plot of land?
Oh, I see. It appears you are experiencing a case of "sour grapes".
