Re: Cheap oil forever!

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:48:41 GMT

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:56:19 GMT, "susupply" <susupply@mindspring.com>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net>
>
>Stunned that someone actually pays attention to what he writes,
>
> wrote in message news:40ce979f.52418589@news.telus.net...
>> Here's another fine example of Patrick's astonishing gift for
>> dishonest context-chopping. Read and learn what true commitment to
>> deceitfulness really is.
>
>Oh, they'll learn oodles about "deceitfulness", all right.

Thank you for admitting it.

>> >Moron, your claim was that the PRIMARY cause of price increases after the
>> >early 1970s was:
>> >
>> >> >> >> ...primarily
>> >> >> >>because the fraction of current oil supply that can be extracted
>at
>> >> >> >>such very low cost has been declining.
>> >
>> >YOUR SOURCE
>>
>> <yawn> Oh, grow up, little boy. I provided a source of historical
>> price charts that proved I was right about the direction of prices and
>> Grinch was wrong.
>
>In fact, the chart showed it was you were wrong about consistently declining
>prices for 100 years.

Nope. I said _pretty_ consistently. And if you factor out the
transient effects of wars, financial panics, etc. that is what
happened.

>And (by presenting the geo-political context for the
>rises) that you were also wrong about the reasons for the price increases in
>1973 and after.

"Geopolitical events" is wrong?

>> I did not say I bought into everything on the site.
>> Much of it makes no sense, like the silly idea of averaging the price
>> of oil over half a century as a guide to future prices (which you so
>> hilariously embraced).
>
>But, it does make sense to use geo-political anomalies--which are so labeled
>for your convenience--as a guide?

No, as an _explanation_ for the associated price anomalies. Such
events cannot be a guide to future prices, as future political events
are not predictable.

>> >says it was OPEC using the Israeli war of 1973 as an excuse for
>> >an embargo, the Iranian revolution, and the Iraq-Iran war of the early
>'80s.
>> >Which is what Grinch told you.
>>
>> <yawn> The Iran-Iraq war, the last of those events, has been over for
>> like 15 years. Oil is flirting with $40/bbl. You are destroyed.
>
>And, your evidence is what for the cause being: "because the fraction of
>current oil supply that can be extracted at such very low cost has been
>declining"?

That is certainly a fact, and a major factor. OPEC is simply not the
dominant factor it was in the 70s. Current industry analysis holds
that OPEC is not capable of controling its members' production levels,
and hasn't been for decades.

>[snip of Roy's brazen attempt to deny that $15.25 per barrel is price data]

You mean snip the proof of your lying.

>> >Neither mild, nor wild, inflation means "declining real prices".
>>
>> ??? Uh, it does when the nominal prices don't rise at least as fast
>> as the inflation.
>
>Nominal prices ARE the measure of inflation, idiot.

Nominal _oil_ prices (which of course was what we were talking about,
context-snipping breath) are _not_ the measure of inflation.

You are destroyed.

>> >Your story was:
>> >
>> >> ...for over 100 years up until the early 1970s, real oil
>> >>>prices fell pretty consistently
>> >
>> >From 1958 to 1970 is TWELVE YEARS, Mensa Breath.
>>
>> You have simply taken that statement from a different context and
>> falsely claimed I made it in this context. That sort of cheap,
>> despicable deceit is a favored technique you use when you need to
>> cover up one of your lies with another lie.
>
>Yes, how unfair of me to actually use your own words in debating you.

That is your standard excuse for your dishonest context-chopping.
Anyone reading this is invited to re-read the whole thread and verify
for himself that Patrick has dishonestly cut and pasted my words to
alter their context in a way calculated to deceive his readers.

-- Roy L

Quantcast