If there are a 105 units of a product being sold all for $50 and one new supplier can add just one at a price of $30, can that supplier force the other suppliers supplying those other 105 units to drastically lower their price when they know the low seller only has a single piece in inventory?

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

Do you lower your prices to compete with the guy who's selling low but only has one unit where you have 11?

And remember there is sufficent demand for all of the units being sold.

Post edited at 1:57 am on July 9, 2008 by obvious child

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

I don't know that the concession that Pres. Bush got from the Saudis is going to solve the crisis, but your analysis of why is flawed.

The pressures are shown in the oil futures market.  If you pay attention to current events you will notice on days where the dollar gains ground oil typically retreats.  As a stronger dollar means it takes less dollars to buy a barrel of oil.  The total value of the oil is static, the value of the currency the oil is traded in changes.

There is a lot more to it than how much it takes to get the stuff out of the ground.  Its about supply and demand and the fact that the world is reaching the capacity for what can be pulled out of the ground in a 24 hour period.  When you don't have extra capacity, the price will fluctuate wildly because people are trying to make sure they have enough and are afraid of running out.  They will pay more because they are uncertain.  If supply is plentiful there is little need to pay a premium price because it will be there tomorrow.  Therefore, drilling more wells will add to that capacity, put more slack in the line and more certainty of it still being there tomorrow.  If those wells are drilled where there is new oil that has been discovered, that has a double impact because the wells are not depleting the more mature fields quicker.

Post edited at 2:23 am on July 9, 2008 by Themouser

---

Well your question has no applicability to the problem you claim to be addressing.

---

This outta be good.

---

The Saudis scarcely have one barrel of oil in their inventory to put into play, and they are hardly without great influence on the rest of the world with what they can do, should they have a mind to do it.

---

Care to reread the thread and repost? You seem to have completely failed to understand what was actually written. Please consult the dictionary for the myriad of terms you do not understand.

---

I don't know that the concession that Pres. Bush got from the Saudis is going to solve the crisis, but your analysis of why is flawed.

---

Huh? Where did I even talk about Bush's trip to the Kingdom?

Please reread and this time pay attention.

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

The drill more advocates argue (among other things) that by drilling everywhere in the US, we can decrease prices. What they fail to recognize is that the total increase we could get would be a drop in the bucket compared to the world total volume. Therefore it wouldn't change prices noticeably and I suspect not even marginally.

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

Neither candidate is investigating long term solutions but are talking quick-fixes which won't do a thing.

tk

-------
"Argentum qui amat, cum argento numquam satiabitur." ~ Solomon

Stuff like corn ethanol is a complete disaster, wind and solar won't really be effective until battery technology gets better, and obama won't give a straight answer on nuclear.

We need to slash subsidies across the board and let people be free to develop whatever will work, including more domestic sources of oil.

I mean look at t boone pickens and his windfarm project, but even he knows that his investment in windfarms won't do a damn thing as long as the government restricts the development of new power lines.

Of course there is also the issue of the liberals up in the northeast that refuse to allow wind power to be developed off the coast.

Post edited at 6:19 am on July 9, 2008 by whoisabs

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

---

So pushing for better battery technology is not a long term solution?

---

Better oil technology is not a solution; it is continued dependency. They already have electric cars. We have the technology for them and can pursue these options. The reason they are not being pursue is because there is no dependency; where are all these rich-ass executives going to make money if people can utilize electricity? That allows for independency since people can develop innovate solutions using the sun/wind to fuel their cars with electricity.

The same is true with the University of Texas; they too had developed a car that could get 500 miles a charge. And this is being pursued by whom? Well, it's not going to generate as much revenue, so this rich-ass executives are only pursuing things which will create a dependency on them. They want more money, not solutions for people's problems.

No, oil efficiency will be much worse and I'll quote:

---

2020 is 12 years away.
12 years ago the price of gas was $1.27, a 239% increase
Inflation, if we accept the traditional view (which I do not), runs at about 3-5% annually, which at 12 years, compounded at 4%, equals 60%.

---

Your "oil efficiency" is not matching the price of oil going up; so until I see you propose cars getting 500-600 miles a gallon (dream on), this solution is no solution at all.

tk

Post edited at 6:27 am on July 9, 2008 by tkster

-------
"Argentum qui amat, cum argento numquam satiabitur." ~ Solomon

---

Quote: from whoisabs at 8:18 am on July 9, 2008

---

So pushing for better battery technology is not a long term solution?

---

Better oil technology is not a solution; it is continued dependency.  They already have electric cars.  We have the technology for them and can pursue these options.  The reason they are not being pursue is because there is no dependency; where are all these rich-ass executives going to make money if people can utilize electricity?  That allows for independency since people can develop innovate solutions using the sun/wind to fuel their cars with electricity.

The same is true with the University of Texas; they too had developed a car that could get 500 miles a charge.  And this is being pursued by whom?  Well, it's not going to generate as much revenue, so this rich-ass executives are only pursuing things which will create a dependency on them.  They want more money, not solutions for people's problems.

No, oil efficiency will be much worse and I'll quote:

---

2020 is 12 years away.
12 years ago the price of gas was $1.27, a 239% increase
Inflation, if we accept the traditional view (which I do not), runs at about 3-5% annually, which at 12 years, compounded at 4%, equals 60%.

---

Your "oil efficiency" is not matching the price of oil going up; so until I see you propose cars getting 500-600 miles a gallon (dream on), this solution is no solution at all.

tk

---

Good job at not even reading the post.

-------
whoisabs i'm not sure
Guess who's back?

---

I agree and it would take a few years before they could get access to that oil anyway. By then oil prices will be higher so the affect will be even lower. The only solution is to look for alternatives now and stop staying dependent on oil and look for oil solutions. The same is true with their solutions to increase gas efficiency; this is just delaying the problem and by 2020 (the proposed date), gas prices will be insanely high that the average person won't be saving that much money anyway.

Neither candidate is investigating long term solutions but are talking quick-fixes which won't do a thing.

---

Quote: from tkster at 8:26 am on July 9, 2008

---

Quote: from whoisabs at 8:18 am on July 9, 2008

---

So pushing for better battery technology is not a long term solution?

---

Better oil technology is not a solution; it is continued dependency.  They already have electric cars.  We have the technology for them and can pursue these options.  The reason they are not being pursue is because there is no dependency; where are all these rich-ass executives going to make money if people can utilize electricity?  That allows for independency since people can develop innovate solutions using the sun/wind to fuel their cars with electricity.

The same is true with the University of Texas; they too had developed a car that could get 500 miles a charge.  And this is being pursued by whom?  Well, it's not going to generate as much revenue, so this rich-ass executives are only pursuing things which will create a dependency on them.  They want more money, not solutions for people's problems.

No, oil efficiency will be much worse and I'll quote:

---

2020 is 12 years away.
12 years ago the price of gas was $1.27, a 239% increase
Inflation, if we accept the traditional view (which I do not), runs at about 3-5% annually, which at 12 years, compounded at 4%, equals 60%.

---

Your "oil efficiency" is not matching the price of oil going up; so until I see you propose cars getting 500-600 miles a gallon (dream on), this solution is no solution at all.

---

My original statement stands like it or not.  Any long term solution should not be built around oil: that was exactly my point.

tk

-------
"Argentum qui amat, cum argento numquam satiabitur." ~ Solomon

ANWR drilling isn't "the answer" but it is part of a solution - use what resources are available while we adapt to new ones.