The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Whiteshiva

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

bkkandrew

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.

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

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

bkkandrew

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

Whiteshiva

What, like the statement that What is wrong with that?

Butterfly

^^ 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.

bkkandrew

^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.

Butterfly

^ 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

bkkandrew

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?

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 ?

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

bkkandrew

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.

Butterfly

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

Butterfly

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

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

are you fucking real ?

bkkandrew

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:

http://teakdoor.com/issues/31530-oil...tml#post696001 (Oil Tumbles as Signs of Slowing Economy Spur Commodity Selling)

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

bkkandrew

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...

bkkandrew

Oh yes. And that is the problem (for you).

Butterfly

great now you are confusing growth rate of supply and demand, with quantities of supply and demand, you can't make that shit up

The growing supply of oil (note, it doesn't say rate) match growing demand. Is demand served by supply ? yes, is demand growing faster than supply, probably, but as long as supply serves demand, everything is fine. A growth rate is NOT quantity, and is irrelevant in the price equilibrium of demand and supply. That's what you are failing to understand, and you keep barking at the wrong tree.

See my post above, you are confusing growth rate and quantities. As long as all those cars are being served, there is no problem. Forecasting price based on growth rate is exactly the problem here, and explain the speculative moves we are seeing on the oil market. At the current rate, the "insignificant" downfall could become significant in the FUTURE. But speculators forget about price elasticity and how demand and supply reacts and adjust to higher prices. This will lead eventually to a revision of the growth rate and lower expectations of future oil price. And this is probably what we are seeing already.

bkkandrew

Right-oh. As Butterfly hangs his head in shame, mia noi beckons. I believe the french call this Sept-a-huit.

Butterfly

^ still waiting for your explanation of price elasticity, you kept ignoring my request for a rebuttal and further explanation of your silly comments, while claiming some kind of "imaginary" victory

Whiteshiva

Not really, demand will always equal supply because the price of the commodity adjusts automatically to keep the two in balance (The famous economics 101 you like referring to). So regardless of how much (or little) oil is produced, supply will serve demand (as you put it), and according to your logic, "everything is fine".

Which I think is over-simplifying the mechanisms at work to the extent where it doesn't really tell you anything.

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