master of denial, see below. Tell me again what you are doing in RL ? teaching English ?Originally Posted by bkkandrew
Originally Posted by bkkandrew
master of denial, see below. Tell me again what you are doing in RL ? teaching English ?Originally Posted by bkkandrew
Originally Posted by bkkandrew
^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,
![]()
well maybe you should, there is a hopeful career waiting for youOriginally 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.
Oh and we are all still waiting for your assessment of which of my citations are loonies...![]()
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,Originally Posted by bkkandrew
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,
Just because you fail to understand something, does not mean that others can't.
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.
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.
So you were actually trolling all along?

131 USD per barrel
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.Originally Posted by bkkandrew
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![]()
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
everything,Originally Posted by Whiteshiva
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![]()
^^ 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![]()
You have had that. Whitsilva has even reposted it twice, but you keep ignoring him too...
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![]()
posting again your original flawed arguments is NOT providing an explanation or a rebuttal against my argument about why oil is not price elastic,Originally Posted by bkkandrew
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:
Fact:Originally Posted by bkkandrew
Fiction:Originally Posted by Butterfly
Fact:Originally Posted by bkkandrew
Originally Posted by Butterfly
isn't oil supply growing until 2005 ? where is it falling since 2004 ? it's fucking flat from 2005Originally Posted by bkkandrew
are you fucking real ?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'.![]()
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?
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...![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)