Rep. Wasserman Schultz grills oil execs over high gas prices

[L. Coyote]

Run time: 04:51 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge0q6SnDug   Posted on YouTube: June 28, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 28, 2008 By DU Member: L. Coyote Views on DU: 1690

 
Oil Price Speculation = http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=206134-1
House Committee, Energy & Commerce, 06/23/2008, 6 hours, 35 minutes

A hearing was held to examine whether market speculation is inflating the price of crude oil above underlying supply and demand, and whether Congress needs to improve regulatory oversight to stop price manipulation.

The hearing included four witness panels. Energy experts testifying in the first panel said that the price of oil would drop if limits were placed on energy commodity futures investments. Executives from the transportation industry testified in the second panel. Walter Lukken, acting chairman and commissioner of the U.S. Commodity Trading Commission testified in the third panel. The fourth panel consisted of futures exchange representatives.

The members' opening statements are available in program:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=206134-2.

[daggahead]

1. Cavuto's right ...

Because everything he says is right.

How dare a Representative, who actually knows how difficult it has been to get legislation passed and investigations going, refute what Faux News says!:silly:

[ErtBob]

2. Not such a great job

Much as I respect Wasserman, "prove to me your not doing manipulating gas prices" is a very in artful question. Perhaps she asked better ones elsewhere in the hearing. Are there any videos of good questions during the panels that dealt with speculation and commodities trading funny stuff (like the Enron Loophole). It needs to be said out loud that supply and demand forces have less and less influence on energy prices any more.

[L. Coyote]

5. She made her point. They cannot!!

[argeec]

12. Terrible job

The smartest thing Fox did here was pick Debbie for the interview. She knows little about the subject and it showed.
Plus, it's not the oil companies but rather Goldman-Sachs, etc. disrupting the market.
If Fox were honest, they would have shown Stupak interviewing someone like Michael Greenberger re: the CFTC's non-regulation of futures markets.
Goldman, Morgan,Stanley and others have poured billions of dollars into the futures markets, driving prices up. The CFTC is supposed to prevent them from doing that and has the authority to do so - they just are not doing their job.
In a way, Debbie is complicit by diverting attention to the wrong target.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x366677

[elleng]

14. argeec, I agree,

and am puzzled that we've not seen/heard more about the stupak hearing. Seems to me that greenberger has explained it clearly, and I don't understand the nay-sayers on the subject.

Anyone???

[Frustratedlady]

3. Good heavens. What is this administration paying him?

I have never heard a reporter come out that strongly in defense of this administration, but then I can't watch FAUX NEWS.

In the first place, any investigations by Congress are thwarted at the get-go, then blocked or denied access to documents or testimony by a biased FTC and judicial system.

He states that if they charge more money, of course they will make more profits. NOT. If they are charging more money to PAY THE INCREASED COST of producing gas, then they would not have obscene profits.

Remind me again why FOX NEWS is still on the air?

[ryanmuegge]

4. For a "business" show, Cavuto is completely ignorant about how the oil industry functions.

Not that physical supply has an impact on price anymore, but even if we do drill here and we discover a lot of it, it still goes on a global market for China and India to buy. Nobody in the press states the obvious: just because we find it here, doesn't mean that it stays here. There is a not-so-subtle implication in this policy debate in the press that all oil that is found domestically stays in the US automatically. He also doesn't point out that most of our oil comes from Canada, trying to play the "war on terrorism" and "national security" card. Yeah, the Saudis have the largest known oil fields in the world, but right now, we import most of our oil from Canada. He's acting as if right now we get all of our oil from the Saudis. I can't help but think this is deception; when have Republicans (like Cavuto) ever cared about the future?

And if the Republicans are so hellbent on decreasing the price of oil over the short and long term, why not just empty the SPR? Overnight the price of oil would drop. Bush is saving that for the election, I guess.

[seeker4ever]

6. School Me Please

If I am a Gas company and I buy my oil at $50.00 a barrel and charge $2.00 a gallon out of which I make a .10 profit per gallon and the price of oil doubles and I charge $4.00 a gallon netting a .10 profit per gallon, how do I earn record profits?

Anyone?

[whistle]

7. (Profits = revenues - expenses) that is the basic formula

...Big Oil buys cheap and sells dear because it controls ALL levels of extraction, distribution, production and retail prices at the pumps plus takes huge government subsidies and enjoys big tax loopholes. They always have and under BushCo for the last seven and a half years have operated in secret as a criminal cartel. Ten cent profit per gallon is total horse-shit!

[seeker4ever]

9. This is not made clear...

The impression is that because prices at the pump go up profits go up. For that to be true your formula has to be true. With the price per barrel increasing the implication is that production costs rise in which case costs rise. That is not fraud. In my opinion, the way the matter is handled by congress and the press, it lends more credibility to assholes like Cavuto.

The case must be made that PROFIT MARGINS are inflated. Otherwise we look like pissy anticorporate bitches. Am I wrong?

[whistle]

10. The profit of ten cents per gallon exists where in the distribution chain?

[northernlights]

13. at the retail gas station

The actual stations where you buy your gas only make about 10-11 cents/gallon. They are teeny little fish in the pond. That's why a number of stations (at least here in Maine) have stopped taking credit cards and insist on cash. Between their credit card payments and the cost of everything else going up, they weren't making any profit any more.

My take is:

1. The big oil companies are raking in record profits.

2. Investors looking for the next bubble turned into commodities speculators and are driving up the prices of food and gas.

3. The corner gas station, you and I are paying the price.:cry:

[seeker4ever]

15. It is the mark up to cover refining costs and earn a profit...

added by the seller. Also, it is an example and not meant to be accurate. My point is, if it costs more to produce your product you charge more but you don't automatically earn more profit.

I just want someone to explain to me where the unethical behavior is in this particular crisis. You can't bitch about Oil Companies just because they earn a profit. What is their actual percentage of profit? What will we "allow" them to earn?

[seeker4ever]

16. No one can answer the question.

If this were a case in a court of law you would have to offer facts and proof. This kind of blanket contempt for big oil is understandable but it will not win an argument.

If one can show that the Oil industry manipulates and inflates the cost of its product you have a case. If speculation drives up the cost you deal with that issue. As Liberal I'd just as soon nationalize oil with a commitment to render it obsolete ASAP.

But running around and crying about the nasty oil companies isn't going to accomplish anything but make Dems and Liberals look like cry babies.

[ooglymoogly]

11. The biggest profits of any corp. or industry in the history of the world should give you the

vaguest clue. This is not about the filling station owner. If you think it is, you are missing the point. We are talking about Exxon Mobile et al; those who own or control the production of oil and gas.

[seeker4ever]

17. That's Not a Good Reason, Sorry.

The entire world runs on oil. To link the size of the industry with fraud is not a reasonable argument. This is the kind of thing that hurts the Democratic party's reputation. It's sour grapes and bitching without facts and a foundation. Another case of Dems bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Explain to me how rising production costs cause rising profits. And if you can't do that show me where the Oil company's malfeasance occurs. Should be a simple task right?

[ooglymoogly]

18. you are not searching for the truth you are attempting to facilitate the opposite, nt

[seeker4ever]

20. B.S.

[BayjanDem]

8. Cavuto is a

:think:...Tool. A walking, talking, dysfunctional TOOL. How on Gods green earth can you possibly defend oil companies. These people are now in the same category as child molesters, and animal abusers. Way to go cavuto.

[seeker4ever]

19. No one has made a credible case- You're using "truthieness"

This kind of factless emotionalism is exactly what the rightists do. It is weak and contributes to the Democratic party's weak reputation.

Someone should be able to expose fraud at some level. I can't find it. I've asked someone here to explain it and no one can.

The subsidies and tax breaks are unquestionably WRONG! But that is not the reason for the hearings and the outcry we hear at this time. Furthermore, Democrats should have been more pressing in terms of CAFE standards and other energy policy issues. We stand around with our dicks in our hands until gas prices go ballistic and then get all pissy at the Oil Companies.

If you rteally want to make a difference on this issue- know what you're talking about. It makes arguing much more interesting.