The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

bkkandrew

so you admit being 100% out on your maths then. Good, thats a start. Hopefully soon you will admit being 100% wrong on most other things.

It is not possible to state this, as for a large part, new technology is required for the conversion to take place. This technology has yet to be invented, implimented or funded.

Thought you would.


Arse about ladyboy tit here Butterfly.

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.

The glaring omission from your ramble is that since 2004 it has been clear that no further output is possible. This is the whole point of the matter. According to the most basic supply and demand arguments, supply increases when demand increases to take advantage of the resultant increasing price. All very well for making widgets, but if there is an actual constraint on production (e.g. the stuff isn't there to be pumped), then the only this that bring back supply/demand equilibrium is ever higher price until the demand has been suppressed. The actual question is; what price does oil have to be to suppress demand to 2004 levels?

Butterfly

^ would you care to answer the question instead of jumping around like a clueless monkey ? again you failed to address the issues or my arguments that oil demand is inelastic because it's a necessity. I think you are confusing elasticity and inelasticity. If oil is not fully available, then the price elasticity of supply is 0, therefore the supply curve is vertical and completely INELASTIC. Only changes in demand determines the price of oil, as quantity can't change or supply is very limited.

I think I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you are a clueless monkey trying to be right at all costs. You haven't demonstrated one bit any of your arguments, except hurling half truth, and flawed opinions. You have no arguments or logic except the usual crap you hear on the news or daytrader blogs.

People ? what people ? blogs ? clueless news report ? please enlighten me ?

Try to continue this debate in an educated manner, with your own words, not news clip or half truth you are cutting and pasting without understanding their meaning.

Not I wasn't. Just that your number wasn't significant enough to change my argument. You can't be that stupid or clueless. Or did I stroke a nerve again ?

Now you can go back drinking as this seems to be the only thing you seem to be good for,

Butterfly

yes at least in the short term, as I mentioned previously, there is inelasticity, but in the long run, the price elasticity of demand is there. Likewise, price elasticity of demand could be higher for higher price in the short term. This is definitely the case now, businesses are adjusting their output, airlines changing routes etc... as the price has become too high to not adjust the quantity demanded.

They will pay more until a certain point. When the price is too high, the price elasticity of Demand will be different, and this is when things start to change.

bkkandrew

Read my post again. Any words you are stuck on, ask.

Being that I am the only one that has produced actual data, backed by citations, on this thread, most reasonable people would consider the reverse to be true.

Er, people on this thread:

http://teakdoor.com/issues/31530-oil...tml#post697807 (Oil Tumbles as Signs of Slowing Economy Spur Commodity Selling)

http://teakdoor.com/issues/31530-oil...tml#post696954 (Oil Tumbles as Signs of Slowing Economy Spur Commodity Selling)

Changed your mind again? so now stating 2% when the answer was 4% is not 100% out?

Butterfly

yes please explain again how the demand for oil is elastic and how it is leading to higher price. That is fucking priceless. You should get a Nobel prize for revolutionizing the world of Economics.


Since when TD is an economic think tank full of economic experts ? it's a fucking forum where people share their opinions and ideas. It's not the Bible or the Gospels. Jesus, you are a bigger idiot than I thought.

Data doesn't tell the full story, and can be interpreted both ways. Citations from blogs or loonies doesn't count.

Now you are getting desperate,

bkkandrew

But this thread is the one where the discussion is taking place. Well it is with the rest of us; with you, who knows?

bkkandrew

The (only) citations I have given on this thread are from the following:

• The People Daily Newspaper
• The Hong Kong Economic and Information Agency
• The Beijing Review
• China Car Times
• The Energy Information Administration of the US Government

Could you please point out which ones are blogs or, indeed, loonies...

bkkandrew

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.

bkkandrew

No, I am just causing you further embarrassment by showing how utterly wrong you are, even on basic maths.

Whiteshiva

Besides, some of the people posting here actually know what they are talking about.......

__________________
Any error in tact, fact or spelling is purely due to transmissional errors...

Butterfly

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

bkkandrew

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

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

Butterfly

^ 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,

Butterfly

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

bkkandrew

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

bkkandrew

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

Butterfly

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,

bkkandrew

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?

good2bhappy

131 USD per barrel

Butterfly

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