[noemon]

Yes, a cancelled pipeline affects current prices.

No, it doesn't. Pipelines take years to build and the energy market does not take into account the hundreds of pipelines licensed but never completed or cancelled.

Only in your world. Buy a fifty thousand dollar electric car and save $80 a month! BFD. And those savings will evaporate when there is a short supply of electricity in the future because of higher electricity demands from charging cars. It's clear Washington DC is creating artificial demand through bad policy by whipsawing the public back and forth to shake out any loose change they may have and corporate America is going right along with it. Europe has had bad energy policy for decades and democrats are working to push that utopian collectivism. Central planning dipschittery pushed by "academics".

You are mumbling nonsense. Not that it's anyhow relevant but I wrote a seething critique of electric cars just 2 days ago in this forum.

Really? How has the energy market been much kinder to Germany? Germany was already paying 1.5 Euros per liter. Now they're paying 2.2 Euros per liter. Compare that to the U.S. rise on a percentage basis. It's pretty bad when we're comparing the US to Yurrip.

Oh dear god, you had a go at renewables which are totally irrelevant to petrol prices as renewables are used for the grid and not for re-fuelling. Democrats for the win then by your logic. Unleaded petrol has always been 3,4 times as much in Europe than in the US and still is. So no issue with Democrats here either.

[BlutoSays]

I live at the other end of the cancelled pipeline.

If cancelled pipelines caused prices to increase, they should have caused prices to increase several months ago. Much like the cancellation caused the price to drop here months ago.

Your argument only makes sense if we assume that energy companies react to Washington's moves months afterward. to protect themselves.

This directly contradicts your next sentence:



No, the pipeline cancellation would only have affected production here, which it did not. We know this because oil production outstripped demand at this point and oil companies were paying people to store oil barrels.



You seem to be confusing energy for transport and energy for buildings.

Prices have been skyrocketing since Biden entered orifice. Hedging began before that. That magnifies the increases as they happen. Oil futures? Hullo?

We had energy independence which kept prices low and then you leftists decided to push green energy and penalize anyone using gasoline. Simple, actually.

[BlutoSays]

No, it doesn't. Pipelines take years to build and the energy market does not take into account the hundreds of pipelines licensed but never completed or cancelled.



You are mumbling nonsense. Not that it's anyhow relevant but I wrote a seething critique of electric cars just 2 days ago in this forum.



Oh dear god, you had a go at renewables which are totally irrelevant to petrol prices as renewables are used for the grid and not for re-fuelling. Democrats for the win then by your logic. Unleaded petrol has always been 3,4 times as much in Europe than in the US and still is. So no issue with Democrats here either.

In order to ARTIFICIALLY boost renewables, DEMOCRATS attack fossil fuels. They do that to deter the use of gasoline and reward the use of electricity. Centralized planning. Got it?

Yes, pipelines take years to build. When you stop building them by FIAT rule, you cause shocks in the energy market to those who invested in them and you cause intended consequences like we are living now (high gas prices translating to high inflation). Those are done on purpose. Investors are then deterred in investing in that form of energy, even though you have no replacement. There isn't even the raw materials necessary at the moment to produce that utopian green energy economy you want so badly. That causes the economy to recede (lower GDP). It reverberates through the economy worldwide and causes inflation because energy demand cannot be met, which affects manufacturing, energy independence and general economic well being.

Renewables and petrol prices are competitors to each other. You act like they aren't.

[Pants-of-dog]

Prices have been skyrocketing since Biden entered orifice. Hedging began before that. That magnifies the increases as they happen. Oil futures? Hullo?

We had energy independence which kept prices low and then you leftists decided to push green energy and penalize anyone using gasoline. Simple, actually.

I get the feeling you do not read my posts. Do you even know where I live?

Again, the Keystone XL pipeline cancellation reduced gas prices where I live.

[BlutoSays]

I get the feeling you do not read my posts. Do you even know where I live?

Again, the Keystone XL pipeline cancellation reduced gas prices where I live.

Yeah, I don't read them too deeply. You're here all the time, so you just machine gun the place with opinion all f'n day, every day. Every thread, constantly. Like I said, you don't have a life outside of this place. It's very noticable. Maybe you're a bot?

Shit, I could be debating a bot! I never thunk about that.

BTW, my preferred pronouns are Sir and Your Majesty, so start using those.

[noemon]

In order to ARTIFICIALLY boost renewables, DEMOCRATS attack fossil fuels. They do that to deter the use of gasoline and reward the use of electricity. Centralized planning. Got it?

Cancelling 1 pipeline while hundreds are idling makes your case totally ridiculous.

Renewables and petrol prices are competitors to each other. You act like they aren't.

Oh dear god, renewables power the grid along with oil, coal, renewables, hydro, nuclear, etcetera the more the renewables the cheaper the grid energy. They complement each other on the grid. The more available energy, the lower the grid price. Petrol for the road powers fuel stations.
Petrol-powered transport makes up 99% of all transport requirements.

Yes, pipelines take years to build. When you stop building them by FIAT rule, you cause shocks in the energy market to those who invested in them and you cause intended consequences like we are living now (high gas prices translating to high inflation). Those are done on purpose. Investors are then deterred in investing in that form of energy, even though you have no replacement. There isn't even the raw materials necessary at the moment to produce that utopian green energy economy you want so badly. That causes the economy to recede (lower GDP). It revererates through the economy worldwide and causes inflation because energy demand cannot be met, which affects manufacturing, energy independence and general economic well being.

There are hundreds of pipelines licensed in the US but not completed. 1 canceled pipeline does not affect current prices in any way, shape or form nor does it detracts investors in energy or other such nonsense. Projects get canceled for a variety of reasons, every single day, no change in prices whatsoever.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, I don't read them too deeply.

Then stop replying, since you are obviously not putting in the effort required to make intelligent responses.

If you want to blame Biden for the latest significant increase (instead of Putin, which makes far more sense), then blame him for no longer purchasing gas and oil from Russia.

Is that blameworthy?

[BlutoSays]

Cancelling 1 pipeline while hundreds are idling makes your case totally ridiculous.



Oh dear god, renewables power the grid along with oil, coal, renewables, hydro, nuclear, etcetera the more the renewables the cheaper the grid energy. They complement each other on the grid. The more available energy, the lower the grid price. Petrol for the road powers fuel stations.
Petrol-powered transport makes up 99% of all transport requirements.



There are hundreds of pipelines licensed in the US but not completed. 1 canceled pipeline does not affect current prices in any way, shape or form nor does it detracts investors in energy or other such nonsense. Projects get canceled for a variety of reasons, every single day, no change in prices whatsoever.

How many barrels of oil does the U.S. use daily: 20.5 million

How many barrels of oil does the U.S. import from Russia daily (2021): 672,000

How many barrels of oil would the XL pipeline have carried daily from Canada: 830,000

Of course that affects prices.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_i ... mbbl_m.htm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30103078

"A planned 1,179-mile (1,897km) pipeline running from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would join an existing pipe. It could carry 830,000 barrels of oil each day."

[Steve_American]

How many barrels of oil does the U.S. use daily: 20.5 million

How many barrels of oil does the U.S. import from Russia daily (2021): 672,000

How many barrels of oil would the XL pipeline have carried daily from Canada: 830,000

Of course that affects prices.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_i ... mbbl_m.htm

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30103078

"A planned 1,179-mile (1,897km) pipeline running from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would join an existing pipe. It could carry 830,000 barrels of oil each day."

Lurkers, clearly Bluto missed the point about why the XL pipeline being cancelled would not effect prices.

The point was that it would not be completed for another 2 years. He just asserts that non-events in 2 years have a large effect on current prices. This is laughable. Obviously he disagrees. He really should provide an example from economic history where a non-event from 2 years hence had effected prices.

However, there was another reason, namely that it would carry tar-like crude oil that the US refineries can't refine and so it would all be exported. Its only effects were going to be to give profits to its owners, wages to a few workers, and reduce the US trade deficit. None of these would effect the US price for crude oil or for gasoline.

[Thunderhawk]

To add a bit more on gas pipe lines, the fields that supply gas to Europe do not have links going East. Russian supply to China is by other fields with their own pipe lines. There were plans to connect the fields tapped for Europe to also have connections going south (Power of Siberia 2/Altai).. but that hasn't been built. Under sanctions and pressure, Im sure they will dust off old plans and build pipe lines quickly. Rail and ship remain options.

[BlutoSays]

Lurkers, clearly Bluto missed the point about why the XL pipeline being cancelled would not effect prices.

The point was that it would not be completed for another 2 years. He just asserts that non-events in 2 years have a large effect on current prices. This is laughable. Obviously he disagrees. He really should provide an example from economic history where a non-event from 2 years hence had effected prices.

However, there was another reason, namely that it would carry tar-like crude oil that the US refineries can't refine and so it would all be exported. Its only effects were going to be to give profits to its owners, wages to a few workers, and reduce the US trade deficit. None of these would effect the US price for crude oil or for gasoline.

You must have read it in on the internet somewhere, so it must be true.

Don't worry. Joe is gonna save us all with E15 gasoline. It may damage modern engines, but elections have consequences and the Koolaid is getting better and better!

[Steve_American]

Lurkers, clearly Bluto missed the point about why the XL pipeline being cancelled would not effect prices.

The point was that it would not be completed for another 2 years. He just asserts that non-events in 2 years have a large effect on current prices. This is laughable. Obviously he disagrees. He really should provide an example from economic history where a non-event from 2 years hence had effected prices.

However, there was another reason, namely that it would carry tar-like crude oil that the US refineries can't refine and so it would all be exported. Its only effects were going to be to give profits to its owners, wages to a few workers, and reduce the US trade deficit. None of these would effect the US price for crude oil or for gasoline.

Bluto replied,

You must have read it in on the internet somewhere, so it must be true.

I said that to convince you, the Lurkers, he needed to provide an example of when an event 2 years hence had a large effect on prices in the now. And, he didn't do that.
. . . Instead, he changed the subject to, if I believe what I see on the internet.
. . . Dose this mean that he could not find such an example? Without an example, why would any one think that prices are going to go up in the now because of an event that will not happen in 2 years?
. . . This assumption seems like an assumption of neo-liberal economics. It is that most people will react to large deficit spending in the now by saving more because they 'know' that taxes will increase in the future someday. So, they 'know' that they need to save more now to pay those taxes. It is too bad that doesn't happen. The opposite happens. People [note, rich people don't increase their spending much because they already buy everything their heart desires] spend their additional income that is a result of the deficit spending. A huge example is unemployment compensation. At least the normal amount of such payments. Also food stamps in a recession, etc.
. . . The converse of this was tried in the EU in 2008 thru 2010 (or longer). The EU nations applied austerity as their response to the GFC/2008, because the theory said that people would spend more and borrow more in the now because their Gov. was not spending too much in the now. Years later, neo-liberals said that oops, they had been wrong. People don't spend more when austerity is applied, and people can't borrow more because banks have stopped lending and handing out new credit cards like candy.

Anyway, yes I do tend to believe my internet sources. But, it is clear that Bluto does too. The main difference is that our sets of sources have very little or NO overlap. That is, his sources and my sources are totally different. His sources failed to provide him with an example of the type we would like to see. So, he changed the subject. Typical internet troll behavior.
.

[BlutoSays]

Yeah, the housing subprime crisis was a setup to the big fall of 2007/2008. That started all the way back to Andrew Cuomo, Dick Fuld, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, the bankers, lenders and Washington DC setting up practices like NINJA loans and CDO's and CDLs and rewarding people with mortgages and loans for flipping houses and for people who had no business having said mortgages. That caused the GSE's to tip over and millions to lose their homes that were innocent bystanders along with millions more who deserved it. BTW, Cuomo was Clinton's HUD secretary from I think around 1997-2001 with his idiotic redlining policies which democrats based on mythical racism and grievance politics again. They just can't help themselves. Yeah, there's your two year example....even much further out.

Steve, again, you don't know what you're talking about. A reoccuring theme you don't seem to grasp, so I'll repeat for you, since you're thick-headed: Helicopter money does not work.

[Steve_American]

Bluto tries to present the example of how not doing something now that has zero real effect now, but would have an effect in 2 years if it had been done now, that can cause an effect now. His example is in the 1st paragraph below.
. . . Then I'll respond to his 2nd point.

Yeah, the housing subprime crisis was a setup to the big fall of 2007/2008. That started all the way back to Andrew Cuomo, Dick Fuld, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, the bankers, lenders and Washington DC setting up practices like NINJA loans and CDO's and CDLs and rewarding people with mortgages and loans for flipping houses and for people who had no business having said mortgages. That caused the GSE's to tip over and millions to lose their homes that were innocent bystanders along with millions more who deserved it. BTW, Cuomo was Clinton's HUD secretary from I think around 1997-2001 with his idiotic redlining policies which democrats based on mythical racism and grievance politics again. They just can't help themselves. Yeah, there's your two year example....even much further out.

Steve, again, you don't know what you're talking about. A reoccuring theme you don't seem to grasp, so I'll repeat for you, since you're thick-headed: Helicopter money does not work.

Lurkers, this is a truly massively terrible example.
1] It is not something not done, it is about something that is done and slowly leads to a big problem.
2] It did NOT cause an effect when it was implemented. The effect happened about 8 or 9 years later.
3] For this to be an example of the type I asked for, the GFC/2008 would have had to have happened in about 1999, not in 2008.

Lurkers, Bluto asserts that "Helicopter money does not work." There are 2 problems with this assertion.
1] It should have said what he means by "work". Since he didn't say more, we have to guess what he means by 'work'. For example, did he mean that, "Helicopter money does not work, to keep the GDP from falling more because of covid and covid lockdowns, and also not work to keep unemployed people from starving."
2] Bluto doesn't like me putting words into his mouth. In this case I'm just asking Lurkers if the intent of Congress when it passed the law for the helicopter money was close to what I said Bluto might have meant by 'work'.
3] Now Lurkers, I assert that the helicopter money did do those 2 things. So, it did work.
. . . Again Bluto doesn't like me to put words into his mouth. So Lurkers, all I'm saying is that if this is what he meant, then my response is as above.

Maybe Bluto meant by work, that it was intended to keep *all* the restaurants and other small businesses from failing in the resulting Great Recession. And so, it didn't work because a lot of businesses did fail.
. . . My response to this quibble is that is very likely that many more small businesses would have failed in the Great Recession without the economic aid he calls helicopter money.

In summary, I'm strongly asserting that IMO and AFAIK, helicopter money did work in the US during the covid lockdowns.
. . . Could they have worked better? Yes. Could they have been targeted better? Yes. Did the law waste roughly about half the money spent by giving it to the rich and the corps they own? Yes.

These quibbles do *not* effect the fact that the helicopter money did work.

____________________________._____________________________________________

Now, if Bluto wants to blame the current inflation on the US helicopter money for covid relief, then I'll again assert that the inflation is not a result of the helicopter money. The AF Fed. Res. Bank put out a report that calculated that 0.3% of the inflation was caused by the covid relief, * and that the inflation is world wide.

____________________________.______________________________________________

I now think that Bluto confused me with what he wrote.
It is possible that by mumbo jumbo he meant that Prof. Mitchell honestly said that he had modified the IMF data to create his graph that showed no evidence that inflation is related to the amount of covid spending. My response is =>

1] OK, he may have totally worked to create the false graph that he wanted. I have no way of knowing if this is what he did.
2] It then becomes a question of who does one trust.
3] I have asserted that Bluto and I trust totally different sources of info. From this it follows =>
. . . a] I will trust Bill not to cook the books to lie to me about his view of the world.
. . . b] Bluto will just assert that it is all a lie or better in is eyes find a place to show where the lie was inserted.
. . . c] That Bluto does not fact check deeply every assertion of fact that he sees in those sources that he trusts. He believes things and posts here those things based on his trust in his sources.
.