Welcome to PatsFans.com

Globe article confirms low oil prices are due to a bad economy

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Rapid cool down of oil prices

    Rapid cool down of oil prices - The Boston Globe

    "But while consumers are paying less for gas and oil, at least for now, economists aren't celebrating - they say the steep drops actually indicate a rapidly weakening global economy, and that's ultimately bad news for everyone.

    Phil Flynn, an oil industry analyst with Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago, said the bottom of the crude market may not have been reached. "If the economic news continues to get worse, $30 isn't out of the question," he said. Flynn believes prices might soon stabilize in the $50 a barrel range."


    So even $30/barrel oil is bad economic news. Since it is the rapidly deteriorating economy and diminishing world demand that is causing oil prices to decline, this decline can't in turn HELP the economy. In this case, the economy is the dog and oil prices are a very small tail.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2008
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    They showed a graph of the past year or so with gas prices compared to the stock market and they went up and down together, it was amazing. Not that the stock market is the economy but they are closely related.
     
  3. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    That doesn't surprise me BF since oil futures drive oil prices. I'd say oil prices have been driven by investments in oil futures to a much greater extent in the last 10 years. Hey, 6 months ago, many still were in denial that we were headed toward recession.
     
  4. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +43 / 6 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    many including BF;)
     
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    .



    Story in the "Globe" (Pravda Boston) says it all. Never misses an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


    :rolleyes:


    //
     
  6. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    BF's attitude 6 months ago was pretty much status quo for most Americans. After all, no one wants to concede that we are in DEEP trouble. But as each week passes, more and more see the sh1tstorm that lies ahead.

    I just read that the CEO of Merril Lynch says we headed for trouble of "EPIC" proportions;

    The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions, comparable to the Great Depression, John Thain, chairman and chief executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday.

    Speaking at the firm's annual banking and financial services conference, Mr Thain said that while he was cautiously optimistic about the future of the financial services industry, he was not at all optimistic about the near-term prospects of the US economy and global markets.

    "Right now, the US economy is contracting very rapidly. We are looking at a period of global slowdown, and a global slowdown in economic activity that affects everyone who participates in global markets," he told investors. "This is not like 1987 or 1998 or 2001. The contraction going on is bigger than that. We will in fact look back to the 1929 period to see the kind of slowdown we're seeing now."


    FT.com - Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown

    Some of us here don't mind being realistic enough to admit the writing is on the wall (and the news) everyday that this is going to be really, REALLY bad. Some get frustrated or pissed with people talking about this.

    I actually think BF has accepted what's happening, but others don't even want to read about it even though these are historical times.
     
  7. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    Awww, isn't he cute, he's picking on me whenever he can. I don't believe I said that I didn't think we'd have a recession, I think I said that most experts didn't; that was 6-9 months ago when it was true.

    Now go crawl back in your hole.
     
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    What does this have to do with the thread topic? Stay on topic or go elsewhere foggy.
     
  9. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy


    Yeah, "pissed" is a good word. For even thinking about it.

    Did you send out your Christmas -- or Hannukah -- cards to Chris, Barney, Jimme, and the Bubba??? Better do it quick while there still is a U.S. Postal Service.


    //
     
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    Anytime they compare it to the Great Depression they lose credibility. If unemployment goes up 50% then it will make it to half of what it was at the height of the Great Depression.
     
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    I have sent Barney emails telling him "revolution is at hand..." on two occasions recently. The FBI will be at my door next month...they're probably listening to my phone calls already. That's why I always try to say the word "Bomb" at least once on every phone call!:D
     
  12. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +43 / 6 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    "Most scientists believe in man made global climate change"

    I have yet to see you make that post yet.
     
  13. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    :confused:

    Huh ?

    Wrong thread buddy.
     
  14. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +43 / 6 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    Nope, you can't cop out that easy. It's a clear analogy, either you're deflecting or you don't understand. Either way, not a good prognosis for your brain.
     
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    I get it, don't worry. Evidently you don't. I simply said that I was quoting experts who turned out to be wrong. Using that analogy, it's very easy to also doubt the experts on MMGW especially when those on the other side are scared to talk.
     
  16. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +43 / 6 / -0

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    you consistently punted to "experts" who were wrong on the economy, why should anyone believe you when it comes to matters of science, which you know even less about?
     
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    I heard an economist say something that made a lot sense. he said things can as bad as the great depression without duplicating things like bread lines or 25% unemployment. Remember, we are far, far less dependent upon agriculture now than we were in the 1930's. If we got to 13-15% umemployment, it could get as bad as the GD.

    Women were not a part of the work force in the great depression, so the percentage of Americans that work today is far greater than it was back then. So 15% unemployment today would probably be worse than 25% back then because our pool of people considered able to work includes women...it did not back then.
     
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    The experts were wrong on the economy. So why do they have to be right on MMGW ? The concept of your analogy is good but it's mixed up.

    And, btw, I know more about science than the economy. I have a degree in Computer Science and minors in Math and Physics and have worked in the field since 1989 - nothing on finance, economics, etc.
     
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,653
    Likes Received:
    221
    Ratings:
    +530 / 13 / -14

    #24 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    Not sure I agree with you. I guess I'd have to see numbers on how many women have to work vs. choose to work. For example, my wife works. But we could live on one income. So if she were added to the unemployment number it would be faked higher; OTOH my single sister has her sole income from her working. My gut feeling from people I work/have worked with says that most women are married and choose to work and that the unemployment rate overstates the pain it causes - in other words, 10% now isn't as bad as 10% in, say, 1960, as there's a lot more women choosing to work who would be fine if unemployed.
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,764
    Likes Received:
    148
    Ratings:
    +416 / 4 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Re: Globe aritcle confirms low oil prices bad for economy

    Whether or not someone "has to" work or doesn't is irrelevant....here's the definition of unemployment;

    "Percentage of employable people actively seeking work, out of the total number of employable people; determined in a monthly survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics"

    Check out this very interesting article from Fox News;

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/jobless-rate-deceptive-depression-comparison/

    "But what about the unemployment rate? How can we say the 6.1% unemployment in September may be worse than 24.9% in 1933?

    One reason is the definition of unemployment and the method used to calculate the unemployment rate.

    That wasn’t the case in 1933 when the unemployment rate was reported as 24.9%. The definition of the labor force in 1933, according to Lebergott, included individuals in the military and prisoners. It also counted individuals as young as 14.

    More significantly, the definition of “unemployed” was not, according to Lebergott, limited to those actively seeking a job.

    Several economists suggest that because of those differences, comparing the 24.9% “unemployment rate” of 1933 with the 6.1% rate today might not be appropriate. But the rate today considers only those who want a job. A better comparison, according to John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Bank, might be the employment population ratio which measures the number of people with jobs against the entire over-16 population. That ratio, in September, was 62.0% -- which means 38.0% of the over-16 population was not working. Indeed that employment population ratio (or its inverse) more closely matches the 1933 definition.

    Longbrake too said the increased participation of women in the labor force changes the measuring stick."
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>