Thread: Oil Tumbles as Signs of Slowing Economy Spur Commodity Selling

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by Butterfly

yes please explain again how the demand for oil is elastic and how it is leading to higher price.

It isn't, I have never stated that it is. That is why I invited you to read my post again, with help, if necessary.

master of denial, see below. Tell me again what you are doing in RL ? teaching English ?

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

given massive price elasticity (obvious to most, but of course, not you), this can quite easliy produce price rises of 1000's of percent.

^Price elasticity, not demand elasticity. Spot the difference?

No, I do not teach English, but you could do with some lessons...

^ Econ 101 ? google it

Price elasticity is always linked to either Demand or Supply, you can't have it alone, as price is the intersection of supply and demand. Get it ? it's going to be really hard for you to get out of that one

Ok let me explain it from the beginning: there was a big bang, massive balls of fire spreading in the vaccum of space, then stars were formed ...

You are hopeless,

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

No, I do not teach English

well maybe you should, there is a hopeful career waiting for you

^^How difficult is it for you to understand this excerpt from my post?

On this thread, people have been referring to the fact that the price is elastic relating to oil in the short term, as oil and its byproducts are essential to life. Any disposable income by both individuals or companies will be used to fund any price increase, up to the point when disposable income is reduced to zero. This is the same as the price elasticity of food. Once the price goes beyond the level that can be afforded by total disposable income individuals riot (as has been happening) and companies collapse in part or whole, see airlines going bankrupt, or reducing their operations.

Oh and we are all still waiting for your assessment of which of my citations are loonies...

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

How difficult is it for you to understand this excerpt from my post?

Because it doesn't make any sense, it's garbage, nothing to do with reality. Sorry to say that, but you completely exposed yourself with that post alone,

It's like a Thai guy telling you that 2+2 = 5 and he knows better than farangs

You are making all kind of wrong assumptions, and you are projecting a conclusion using bits of facts as support, but at the end it's all trash.

Thanks for playing,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

How difficult is it for you to understand this excerpt from my post?

Because it doesn't make any sense, it's garbage, nothing to do with reality. Sorry to say that, but you completely exposed yourself with that post alone,

Just because you fail to understand something, does not mean that others can't.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

It's like a Thai guy telling you that 2+2 = 5 and he knows better than farangs

What on earth has this got to do with a Thai guy? Or is related to the ladyboy that was 100% out on a simply calculation earlier on this thread? Oh no - that would have been you.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are making all kind of wrong assumptions, and you are projecting a conclusion using bits of facts as support, but at the end it's all trash.

In your opinion. But given the fact that it is your opinion, then I am content. Being called rubbish by a dimwit that has lost the argument is a like a double negative, so yes, I'm happy about that.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Thanks for playing,

So you were actually trolling all along?

131 USD per barrel

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Being called rubbish by a dimwit that has lost the argument is a like a double negative, so yes, I'm happy about that.

You have proved beyond reasonable double to be the dimwit, making stupid assumptions like price elasticity, basically saying "up" is "down", "green" is "blue", "sky" is "earth" etc..., and claiming some kind of argument victory out of the blue without refuting any of the points I made, which are not my opinions, but generally accepted academic and economics principles. Your arguments have all been your own little theory based on emotions and hearsay.

You are hopeless, and it's pointless at the end, you can't even understand basic concepts, hence my reference to 2+2

Your mianoi is probably waiting, you can rush back to her now, and stop making a fool of yourself here

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^^How difficult is it for you to understand this excerpt from my post?

On this thread, people have been referring to the fact that the price is elastic relating to oil in the short term, as oil and its byproducts are essential to life. Any disposable income by both individuals or companies will be used to fund any price increase, up to the point when disposable income is reduced to zero. This is the same as the price elasticity of food. Once the price goes beyond the level that can be afforded by total disposable income individuals riot (as has been happening) and companies collapse in part or whole, see airlines going bankrupt, or reducing their operations.

Seriously Butters - exatcly what in the above paragraph do you disagree with?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Being called rubbish by a dimwit that has lost the argument is a like a double negative, so yes, I'm happy about that.

You have proved beyond reasonable double to be the dimwit, making stupid assumptions like price elasticity, basically saying "up" is "down", "green" is "blue", "sky" is "earth" etc..., and claiming some kind of argument victory out of the blue without refuting any of the points I made, which are not my opinions, but generally accepted academic and economics principles. Your arguments have all been your own little theory based on emotions and hearsay.

You are hopeless, and it's pointless at the end, you can't even understand basic concepts, hence my reference to 2+2

Your mianoi is probably waiting,

A quick resume of the thread then:

Butterfly claimed that demand for oil from from China and India was 'imaginary'. I then posted data, with citations, showing him that it was real. He has not addressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.

Butterfly claimed that production was rising in tandem with demand. I then posted data, with citations, showing that during the period of price rises (2004-date), it had actually fallen. He has not adressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.

Butterfly admitted that he was 100% out on his basic maths calculations on supply. He then said he wasn't, then he said that it didn't matter anyway.

When shown to be wrong by many on the thread, Butterfly has simply ranted, insulted, thrown reds around and changed the subject at every turn.

^

You are a fraud, claim victory when you are exposed, then repeat the same "misconceptions" over and over again until everyone forgets about your flawed assumptions

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Seriously Butters - exatcly what in the above paragraph do you disagree with?

everything,

he only needs to refer to my earlier posts, learn, google, whatever and sees how wrong he was. But he won't, prefer to claim some "imaginary" victory

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^

You are a fraud, claim victory when you are exposed, then repeat the same "misconceptions" over and over again until everyone forgets about your flawed assumptions

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Seriously Butters - exatcly what in the above paragraph do you disagree with?

everything,

he only needs to refer to my earlier posts, learn, google, whatever and sees how wrong he was. But he won't, prefer to claim some "imaginary" victory

Neat the way you didn't challenge any of my resume of the thread.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Seriously Butters - exatcly what in the above paragraph do you disagree with?

everything,

What, like the statement that

Any disposable income by both individuals or companies will be used to fund any price increase, up to the point when disposable income is reduced to zero.

What is wrong with that?

^^ you are a complete psycho, bkka, I answered all your "allegations" before, you kept ignoring them because it deconstructed your arguments, so instead you claim some kind of imaginary victory, state things I didn't say to make your points and keep going in silly circles. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

you remind me of Boon Mee and the other right wing loonies when talking politics. No substance, no arguments, all feelings, and hearsay,

anyway, go back to my posts all the answers are there or you can keep jerking off claiming you are right, I am wrong, and you are a 20year veteran in the business while posting from an Internet cafe somewhere on Rakamuang road.

^Can you point to a single post you have made specifically rebutting the following:

The data, with citations, showing that demand from India and China was real. You previously described it as 'imaginary'.

The data, with citations, showing that oil production had fallen from 2004-2007. You previously described production 'increasing at the same rate'.

If you cannot, you have been shown to be wrong on the damand side and the supply side. You can't really get more wrong than that in economics.

^ still waiting for your little explanation on that price elasticity "jewel" ?

as for the rest, go back to my fucking posts, it's all there,

if you are blind or just plain stupid, there is nothing else I can do

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ still waiting for your little explanation on that price elasticity "jewel" ?

You have had that. Whitsilva has even reposted it twice, but you keep ignoring him too...

Originally Posted by Butterfly

as for the rest, go back to my fucking posts, it's all there,

if you are blind or just plain stupid, there is nothing else I can do

No its not, you haven't responded to any of the points made, which is why I did a resume. If you are certain I am wrong on this, why not provide a link the relevant post?

^ because you ignored those posts the first time, second time, and third time. Posting them again will only lead you to ignore them a fourth time. A bit pointless, isn't it ?

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ because you ignored those posts the first time, second time, and third time. Posting them again will only lead you to ignore them a fourth time. A bit pointless, isn't it ?

No. They just don't exist. If they did you would have gleefully posted them.

Admit defeat gracefully and then people won't think you are a dick. Wrong, but not a dick.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

You have had that. Whitsilva has even reposted it twice, but you keep ignoring him too...

posting again your original flawed arguments is NOT providing an explanation or a rebuttal against my argument about why oil is not price elastic,

try harder boy,

Like I said, you kept ignoring things and claim victory

you are probably trolling anyway, you can't be that stupid or going in circles like this without being a complete psycho, and I am a sucker for following you in your little trolling games

Ok to end that silly troll, a quick recap for the retards, it's a slow day

Fiction:

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Butterfly claimed that demand for oil from from China and India was 'imaginary'. I then posted data, with citations, showing him that it was real. He has not addressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.

Fact:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Yeah, the "imaginary" demand that give justification to push oil to the current level are not REAL, just imaginary,

Fiction:

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Butterfly claimed that production was rising in tandem with demand.

Fact:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

matched by a growing supply of oil, so the price at the end doesn't move really,

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

1990 - 66,425.64
1991 - 66,399.10
1992 - 66,563.94
1993 - 67,091.32
1994 - 68,588.09
1995 - 70,271.87
1996 - 71,916.75
1997 - 74,157.59
1998 - 75,654.07
1999 - 74,839.56
2000 - 77,762.11
2001 - 77,684.02
2002 - 76,994.98
2003 - 79,615.43
2004 - 83,124.28
2005 - 84,631.48
2006 - 84,597.11
2007 - 84,600.64

isn't oil supply growing until 2005 ? where is it falling since 2004 ? it's fucking flat from 2005

I then posted data, with citations, showing that during the period of price rises (2004-date), it had actually fallen. He has not adressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.

are you fucking real ?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Ok to end that silly troll, a quick recap for the retards, it's a slow day

Fiction:

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Butterfly claimed that demand for oil from from China and India was 'imaginary'. I then posted data, with citations, showing him that it was real. He has not addressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.

Fact:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Yeah, the "imaginary" demand that give justification to push oil to the current level are not REAL, just imaginary,

Right, well let's look at which is fact and fiction:

Chinese car ownership 1990 - 1 million. Source:

Individual Car Ownership Surging in China

Chinese car ownership 2000 - 16.0891 million; 2001 - 18.0204 million; 2002 - 20.5317 million. Source:

Demand for automobiles to maintain rapid, steady growth (hktdc.com)

Chinese car ownership esimated in 2005 - 30 million. Source:

Facts & Figures of Chinese Auto Industry -- Beijing Review

Chinese car ownership in 2007 - 56.97 million. Source:

Car Ownership up 32% in 2007 at China Car Times

According to CSMWorldwide, an American market analysis firm, China’s auto output would surpass 6 million units in 2008; China would replace Germany as the world’s third largest auto manufacturer in 2006; and by 2015, China may transcend Japan to become the second largest auto power.

Source:

Facts & Figures of Chinese Auto Industry -- Beijing Review

I originally posted it here:

https://teakdoor.com/issues/31530-oil...tml#post696001

So are the cars 'real' or 'imaginary'?
Will they produce 'real' or 'imaginary' demand for oil?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Fiction:

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Butterfly claimed that production was rising in tandem with demand.

Fact:

Originally Posted by Butterfly

matched by a growing supply of oil, so the price at the end doesn't move really,

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

1990 - 66,425.64
1991 - 66,399.10
1992 - 66,563.94
1993 - 67,091.32
1994 - 68,588.09
1995 - 70,271.87
1996 - 71,916.75
1997 - 74,157.59
1998 - 75,654.07
1999 - 74,839.56
2000 - 77,762.11
2001 - 77,684.02
2002 - 76,994.98
2003 - 79,615.43
2004 - 83,124.28
2005 - 84,631.48
2006 - 84,597.11
2007 - 84,600.64

Now, we can see that the number of cars in China has increased 53% from 2005 to 2007. Yet in the same period oil production has decreased by 0.036%. This significantly is the period of the large rise in oil prices.

So is Butterfly right that production is rising in tandem with demand?

Answers on a postcard etc., etc...