Comments on: Charts are busted! http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/ Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:07:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-573 Anonymous Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:23:01 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-573 Oh yeah... I was going to mention those hearings and the Jon Stewart comment, but I forgot. As it turns out, Stevens addresses that exactly. He complains that even before the hearings began there was already a press release about how the execs weren't going to be sworn in. Then he says that it's not customary to swear people in, and anyway, lying in front of a Congressional hearing is a federal crime and the executives are aware of that, so he's not going to swear them in. Anyway, I don't see what the executives would be lying about, anyway, because they're just presenting their viewpoints, essentially, and no one is even interviewing them. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Oh yeah… I was going to mention those hearings and the Jon Stewart comment, but I forgot. As it turns out, Stevens addresses that exactly. He complains that even before the hearings began there was already a press release about how the execs weren’t going to be sworn in. Then he says that it’s not customary to swear people in, and anyway, lying in front of a Congressional hearing is a federal crime and the executives are aware of that, so he’s not going to swear them in. Anyway, I don’t see what the executives would be lying about, anyway, because they’re just presenting their viewpoints, essentially, and no one is even interviewing them. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: someone else http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-572 someone else Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:13:32 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-572 did you link the same hearings that John Stewart highlighted because Ted Stevens refused to require the execs to swear in? <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://darkdaysahead.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">someone else</a> did you link the same hearings that John Stewart highlighted because Ted Stevens refused to require the execs to swear in? 

Posted by someone else

]]> By: Alanhttp://blog.monkeysign.net http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-571 Alanhttp://blog.monkeysign.net Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:40:34 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-571 No, I meant '90s cheap oil. At the time I wrote it, I was remembering paying 90 cents/gallon for gas in the late '90s. But you made me doubt myself, so I checked DOE statistics. They show that real oil prices spiked in 1978, reaching an all-time high in 1981, and returning to their 1978 levels in 1985. Prices then reached an all-time low in 1998 (though they're comparable to 1972 prices, just before oil markets went haywire). Of course, the price of oil has been a lot more volatile since 1978 than it was before, so there are probably peaks and valleys that don't show up in the data set I'm looking at, but that's the gist.... <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://blog.monkeysign.net" REL="nofollow" TITLE="webmaster at monkeysign dot net">Alan</a> No, I meant ’90s cheap oil. At the time I wrote it, I was remembering paying 90 cents/gallon for gas in the late ’90s. But you made me doubt myself, so I checked DOE statistics. They show that real oil prices spiked in 1978, reaching an all-time high in 1981, and returning to their 1978 levels in 1985. Prices then reached an all-time low in 1998 (though they’re comparable to 1972 prices, just before oil markets went haywire). Of course, the price of oil has been a lot more volatile since 1978 than it was before, so there are probably peaks and valleys that don’t show up in the data set I’m looking at, but that’s the gist…. 

Posted by Alan

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-570 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:11:04 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-570 Yeah, I've heard that theory. I don't quite buy it, mostly because the USSR was never exporting most of its product. Maybe it relied on what it did export for foreign revenue, and there's a slim chance that the collapse of oil price from its historic highs might have been a crippling blow (iffy), but even so - recall that in the early 80s, the major event going on worldwide was a dramatic contraction in consumption. This is what forced the price of oil down, and in fact OPEC production shrank dramatically during most of the 80s.<br/><br/>But after checking it seems the theory I posited above (which was the one put forward by the head of ConocoPhilips) is incorrect. Russian production tanks after the fall of the Soviet Union (although exports, interestingly, continue to climb during that era - see <a HREF="http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n12d01.htm" REL="nofollow">some graphs I found</a> ). But it doesn't take off again until the end of the 90s, after the historic low of 1998. The best explanatory factor is OPEC production ramping up again after the 80s. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Yeah, I’ve heard that theory. I don’t quite buy it, mostly because the USSR was never exporting most of its product. Maybe it relied on what it did export for foreign revenue, and there’s a slim chance that the collapse of oil price from its historic highs might have been a crippling blow (iffy), but even so – recall that in the early 80s, the major event going on worldwide was a dramatic contraction in consumption. This is what forced the price of oil down, and in fact OPEC production shrank dramatically during most of the 80s.

But after checking it seems the theory I posited above (which was the one put forward by the head of ConocoPhilips) is incorrect. Russian production tanks after the fall of the Soviet Union (although exports, interestingly, continue to climb during that era – see some graphs I found ). But it doesn’t take off again until the end of the 90s, after the historic low of 1998. The best explanatory factor is OPEC production ramping up again after the 80s. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-569 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:26:02 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-569 (re 80s, that's what i thought, and more to point that that was why the north sea no longer has liquified dead things beneath it) (all hail maggie & ron) <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a>david (re 80s, that’s what i thought, and more to point that that was why the north sea no longer has liquified dead things beneath it) (all hail maggie & ron) 

Posted by david

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-568 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 07:43:11 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-568 Yeah, well, you collided the images together by association, if not syntactically. Shame on you.<br/><br/>I think I'm more down with pirate-tongue than bandit-tongue anyway. Arrrrr.<br/><br/>Do you mean 80s era cheap oil? Because I've heard (I think at the same talk I met hedgey at) that cheap oil came from our using political pressure SA to release tons, thereby flooding the market, driving the pricedown and dragging the export-king-USSR into bankruptcy, since oil was its only major source of foreign currency--that, in fact, it was the opening of the Saudi oil-floodgates which "defeated" the Soviet Union (along with the arms race.) I dunno, maybe I'm just confused. . . <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> Yeah, well, you collided the images together by association, if not syntactically. Shame on you.

I think I’m more down with pirate-tongue than bandit-tongue anyway. Arrrrr.

Do you mean 80s era cheap oil? Because I’ve heard (I think at the same talk I met hedgey at) that cheap oil came from our using political pressure SA to release tons, thereby flooding the market, driving the pricedown and dragging the export-king-USSR into bankruptcy, since oil was its only major source of foreign currency–that, in fact, it was the opening of the Saudi oil-floodgates which “defeated” the Soviet Union (along with the arms race.) I dunno, maybe I’m just confused. . . 

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-567 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:51:56 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-567 That 90's-era cheap oil, by the way, was the direct product of the collapse of the highly productive Soviet economy, and their move from consuming most of their oil production domestically towards becoming a major oil-exporter. That combination is unlikely to arise again. There's exactly one country in the world that's physically able to repeat that feat, and I'm standing in it. Well, sitting. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> That 90′s-era cheap oil, by the way, was the direct product of the collapse of the highly productive Soviet economy, and their move from consuming most of their oil production domestically towards becoming a major oil-exporter. That combination is unlikely to arise again. There’s exactly one country in the world that’s physically able to repeat that feat, and I’m standing in it. Well, sitting. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-566 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:49:29 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-566 No, no... the BANDITS use plenty of tongue. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> No, no… the BANDITS use plenty of tongue. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Anonymous Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:13:44 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-565 So long as I have out the calculator, I'd like to point out that Sen. Clinton raised $17 million last year, including $6 million in the fourth quarter, making her the biggest legal political fundraiser in America. Hooray for her. It took Exxon Mobil 22 minutes and 35 seconds to bring in the same amount of revenue, based on their fourth-quarter sales. It took 4 hours 9 minutes to gather that much profit, the poor dears. So I think they can make out with whatever body parts they like -- particularly the body politic. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="rhinocrisy.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">hedgey</a> So long as I have out the calculator, I’d like to point out that Sen. Clinton raised $17 million last year, including $6 million in the fourth quarter, making her the biggest legal political fundraiser in America. Hooray for her. It took Exxon Mobil 22 minutes and 35 seconds to bring in the same amount of revenue, based on their fourth-quarter sales. It took 4 hours 9 minutes to gather that much profit, the poor dears. So I think they can make out with whatever body parts they like — particularly the body politic. 

Posted by hedgey

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2006/01/charts-are-busted/comment-page-1/#comment-564 Anonymous Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:55:54 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=555#comment-564 <i>We have these emotional feelings related to gasoline because there's no readily available substitute."</i> <br/><br/>And some of us get this emotional reaction b/c a big REASON there's still no readily available substitute is b/c of the actions of said oil profiting company. <br/><br/><i>Oil company make out like bandit*.<br/><br/><br/>* Who, I am told, use plenty of tongue.</i><br/><br/>Eww, eww, eww!!! Saurabh! You're lucky I have no current make out opportunities, or I'd be very pissed at how much the lingual image of oily executives is making my brain cringe. What are you, a double agent with the abstinence squad?  <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> We have these emotional feelings related to gasoline because there’s no readily available substitute.” 

And some of us get this emotional reaction b/c a big REASON there’s still no readily available substitute is b/c of the actions of said oil profiting company.

Oil company make out like bandit*.

* Who, I am told, use plenty of tongue.

Eww, eww, eww!!! Saurabh! You’re lucky I have no current make out opportunities, or I’d be very pissed at how much the lingual image of oily executives is making my brain cringe. What are you, a double agent with the abstinence squad?  

Posted by Saheli

]]>