|
mobby_6kl posted:What the gently caress are you guys even arguing about? It's not like this poo poo is trivial to check or anything This is a better one to use because it goes newer: 
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Radbot posted:"It's an inelastic good" and "demand in America has been down", two great phrases that make zero sense together Distillate pricing generally changes about 2.4 cents per $1-per-barrel change according to the EIA. To get down to your $1 gas, from the average $2.79 we have now crude would have to go negative. To even get below $2 would require a $33 drop in the price of oil, which would put it down at $12 per barrel on Brent - and that's just not going to happen. A huge dip in China's demand for oil wouldn't come anywhere close to having that kind of effect. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Logical fallacies much? Jesus christ you clearly missed an either/or statement before writing your first response and you missed that I'm talking about demand for gasoline writing this pile of words. I never mentioned input prices. Learn to separate what's on the page with whatever's going on in your brain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Jesus christ you clearly missed an either/or statement before writing your first response and you missed that I'm talking about demand for gasoline writing this pile of words. I never mentioned input prices. Learn to separate what's on the page with whatever's going on in your brain. An either/or statement? Tu quoque is a logical fallacy wherein you avoided having to engage with me because you claimed I'd made a mistake. Instead of handling the burden of proof for your argument you just said I made a mistake and refused to engage with any of the substance. It's entirely possible to make a true claim and argue it poorly, which I may have done, but the substance remains irrespective of how well I present it. And input prices is precisely what we're talking about here. A drop in Chinese energy demand dropping crude prices is the whole point of the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
That's not even what tu quoque is. Oh sorry "to quoque" lol. Here check this out: Crashrat posted:And most of the lost jobs will be mid or downstream as there's not enough demand to run the refineries at full tilt. Crashrat posted:Third - black or white. You're claiming only idling capacity or letting inventory build are possible without a price change. That's not true. Your dumb "well technically" argument doesn't even jive with what you believe will happen. This is a tu quoque btw. Anyway I was talking about gas prices which was apparent in my post when I said I was talking about gas prices, saying "well this conversation is about oil prices so I'll read this as though it's about what I think it's about rather than what it says it's about" is exactly the kind of thing you have to not do if you want to improve your reading comprehension. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:It's entirely possible to make a true claim and argue it poorly, which I may have done, but the substance remains irrespective of how well I present it. I mean aside from economics entirely this is just a profoundly wrongheaded way of looking at argument. How am I supposed to know what the substance of your argument is if you present it poorly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:An either/or statement? Tu quoque is a logical fallacy wherein you avoided having to engage with me because you claimed I'd made a mistake. Instead of handling the burden of proof for your argument you just said I made a mistake and refused to engage with any of the substance. It's entirely possible to make a true claim and argue it poorly, which I may have done, but the substance remains irrespective of how well I present it. Keep loving that chicken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:That's not even what tu quoque is. Oh sorry "to quoque" lol. Alright we'll just ignore the criticism aspect since that's not going to be constructive. Ignoring the ad hominem - you're ignoring the rest of what I said on the third aspect so no I didn't contradict myself. And to make sure I'm understanding your third part - are you saying crude demand is irrelevant to gasoline prices? I did state that they move independently of each other, but it's a lagging effect mostly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I mean aside from economics entirely this is just a profoundly wrongheaded way of looking at argument. How am I supposed to know what the substance of your argument is if you present it poorly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
My criticism of what? You're applying formal logical rules that you've got half-wrong to a thread on a message board where the rules don't make any sense because we're not using formal argument at all. You're just flailing at this point, which is funny because I don't think anyone in the thread would actually disagree with the point you keep trying to shoehorn the conversation towards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
If P then Q. P is false. Q is false. That may be a fallacy but it doesn't follow that Q is true holy poo poo dude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If P then Q. Q wasn't proven false just because P was. Regardless I don't see how I've poorly argued anything, and if anything, you take all of my substantive arguments and reply with personal attacks. You haven't actually contributed a single cogent effort-based response to any of the replies I've made. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
I'm the stuka sound effect as the thread plummets rapidly towards the ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm the stuka sound effect as the thread plummets rapidly towards the ground. The thread is fine. We're in somewhat of a tangent since I replied to Radbot on his comment on cheap gas in America. Now Arglebargle as well as Radbot have decided to explain how China's economy contracting would lead to a surfeit of gasoline supply causing prices to plummet in the United States. So long as China's economy is considered to have knock-on effects I think it's fair to discuss how it will impact (or not) other economies. I provided argument to the contrary of Arglebargle and Radbot abstractly, but specifically I did refute the possibility of $1 gasoline since it'd involve negative crude prices. Arglebargle is just attacking me personally, or trying to find a flaw in my logic rather than dealing with the substance, and that's kind of derailing since it's not contributing anything to the discussion. If someone else disagrees with me and would like to discuss it I'd be happy to be proven wrong in a constructive manner re: China having an economic contraction would in fact have large systemic effects on crude pricing such that no other economy could absorb the demand reduction leading to a precipitous price collapse in crude - and thus cheaper gasoline at the pump in America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Q wasn't proven false just because P was. Regardless I don't see how I've poorly argued anything, and if anything, you take all of my substantive arguments and reply with personal attacks. What substantive arguments? Your whole exchange with me has been listing logical fallacies, and hammering on about oil prices when I was talking about demand for gasoline. This whole conversation is a wild goose chase that you initiated because you misunderstood my post. This whole thing started when I said that if demand for gas falls, refiners have to either idle capacity, let inventory build up, or change their prices. You responded that they can just idle capacity without changing prices, I responded that you need to read better and this magical journey started. Post more misunderstandings of logical fallacies though that's infinitely more entertaining than this stuff about oil and gas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Distillate pricing generally changes about 2.4 cents per $1-per-barrel change according to the EIA. To get down to your $1 gas, from the average $2.79 we have now crude would have to go negative. To even get below $2 would require a $33 drop in the price of oil, which would put it down at $12 per barrel on Brent - and that's just not going to happen. But the national average for gas in the US dipped to $2.02 earlier this year when crude oil was at $45-$46 a barrel, why does it need to go to $12 to go to $2 again?  Hell, where I was at the time I paid $1.60 a gallon at the low point, mostly because the state had relatively low fuel taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What substantive arguments? Your whole exchange with me has been listing logical fallacies, and hammering on about oil prices when I was talking about demand for gasoline. This whole conversation is a wild goose chase that you initiated because you misunderstood my post. This whole thing started when I said that if demand for gas falls, refiners have to either idle capacity, let inventory build up, or change their prices. You responded that they can just idle capacity without changing prices, I responded that you need to read better and this magical journey started. I replied that idling was possible because at the end of your statement you concluded that there would be an increase in inventory - you neglected to discuss idling of capacity in your conclusion. Further I later commented on how broader macroeconomic effects of a Chinese economic contraction could be soaked up by other economies in SE Asia to the point that there would be no net decrease in demand, which would stabilize crude, and continue with gasoline prices apace. My initial point was to discuss how a Chinese economic contraction does not magically entail a decrease in crude demand nor gasoline demand because the contraction in China could - and very likely would - lead to an expansion in other economies. I mean just turn on Bloomberg or CNBC for an hour and you'll hear endless complaints about a lack of solid places for capital to be invested. A contraction in China that would lead to investment-friendly opportunities in other economies would be highly welcomed by global capital re: rent-seeking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
I had hoped that China had done something hilarious. Nope, just sperg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I replied that idling was possible because at the end of your statement you concluded that there would be an increase in inventory - you neglected to discuss idling of capacity in your conclusion. Arglebargle III posted:Fewer people will want to buy gas for that price though. That's literally what a fall in demand means. If they were to continue production where it was before the fall in demand and not change price they will be left with some inventory that doesn't clear. They can either idle some capacity or let inventory build up. Those are their only choices without a price change. But hey you know an easy way to clear excess inventory? Reading comprehension man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I mean just turn on Bloomberg or CNBC for an hour and you'll hear endless complaints about a lack of solid places for capital to be invested. A contraction in China that would lead to investment-friendly opportunities in other economies would be highly welcomed by global capital re: rent-seeking. So what places would benefit from a downturn in China?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But the national average for gas in the US dipped to $2.02 earlier this year when crude oil was at $45-$46 a barrel, why does it need to go to $12 to go to $2 again? Thanks for the on-topic reply that didn't just begin and end with an insult. Obviously there's a limit to the effectiveness of the EIA's napkin math ratio of 2.4 cents : $1-per-barrel - it's a simplistic tool that I was using to make the argument quickly. I'm not saying pricing can't occasionally drop, but as you know from going to the gas station again now that price didn't stick around. - plus as you mentioned gasoline taxes are low where you are Similarly when the Cushing storage depot was near capacity there was chatter about gasoline prices plummeting - but that didn't happen either. My point is that while occasional large fluctuations may happen it doesn't necessarily mean it's there to stay. The price went back up around the country, and it's stayed there, despite a surfeit of supply. Edit: So basically price of crude would have to drastically drop in order to consistently drop gasoline prices. Fluctuations don't count. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Thanks for the on-topic reply that didn't just begin and end with an insult. The thing is that what you're talking about simply doesn't work out well. It's a decent rule of thumb for estimating things in the rough, but it tends to fall apart in the actual data. And the price is already, well, not staying "here".
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The thing is that what you're talking about simply doesn't work out well. It's a decent rule of thumb for estimating things in the rough, but it tends to fall apart in the actual data. And the price is already, well, not staying "here". I'll admit that I don't have a model on hand to predict gasoline prices with a single input of crude price, and that at best I can point to the rough ratio the EIA provides to estimate. But that aside doesn't negate the fact that, as I stated in an earlier post - a Chinese economic contraction does not magically entail a decrease in crude demand nor gasoline demand because the contraction in China could - and very likely would - lead to an expansion in other economies. I mean just turn on Bloomberg or CNBC for an hour and you'll hear endless complaints about a lack of solid places for capital to be invested. A contraction in China that would lead to investment-friendly opportunities in other economies would be highly welcomed by global capital re: rent-seeking. Pretty much every Asian Tiger plus Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines would benefit from that contraction. Nevermind the US itself. All other things remaining the same I'll gladly admit that a Chinese economic contraction would drop the price of gasoline around the world, but my very point is that all things wouldn't remain the same. Supply will start coming from other economies, and they'll need the energy China's not using to be able to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
China Economy Thread: This thread is actually about the cost of 89 at the gas pump in the United States
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Please stop sperging and lets make fun of China some more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:China Economy Thread: This thread is actually about the cost of 89 at the gas pump in the United States What rich rear end in a top hat buys 89. Real working folks buy 87. Eat cheesetriangles posted:Please stop sperging and lets make fun of China some more. I don't think this has been addressed yet, but what's the absolute best, but realistic, case for China in this scenario and how likely is it to happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:Please stop sperging and lets make fun of China some more. But that would hurt the feelings of the Chinese people. Canine Blues Arooo posted:I don't think this has been addressed yet, but what's the absolute best, but realistic, case for China in this scenario and how likely is it to happen? About the best I can really imagine is the government decides to just swallow a big chunk of the loss, but that still isn't likely to help out the average person who invested, so you're going to see a lot of bad debt passing around as a result of all that margin buying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:About the best I can really imagine is the government decides to just swallow a big chunk of the loss, but that still isn't likely to help out the average person who invested, so you're going to see a lot of bad debt passing around as a result of all that margin buying. Isn't this what they're doing right now? Are there any signs that China is making structural changes, or is it just "keep holding the dam up and hope it breaks when someone else is in charge"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Are there any signs that China is making structural changes, or is it just "keep holding the dam up and hope it breaks when someone else is in charge"? It's that, although it should be pointed out that the dam breaking is going to be a lot more anticlimactic and more whimper-y than bang-y. I think the government will be able to avoid a dramatic economic crash, but the structural issues will kill off growth unless they're fixed, which the CCP has no real chance of doing. That's economically, at least. Politically it's likely the CCP will do something stupid like invade somewhere or dramatically escalate military tension to shore up support
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Looks like the auto industry preparing for a Chinese economic slowdown. Nothing really surprising in the article. Just another indication that the current growth rate is unsustainable. http://www.autonews.com/article/20150805/COPY01/308059939/chinese-demand-may-worsen-as-bmw-and-toyota-issue-warnings quote:August 5, 2015 - 5:10 am ET
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Wow I never thought I'd see the day when BMW dials it down in China.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Shanghai up 5% today, crisis adverted everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
China has devalued the renminbi in response to the economic slowdown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:China has devalued the renminbi in response to the economic slowdown. And they did it for a second time today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Red China is coming for our dollars!
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
If this keeps going watch other major exporters and the US pitch a fit. China's been accused of undervaluing its currency for decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:If this keeps going watch other major exporters and the US pitch a fit. China's been accused of undervaluing its currency for decades. Invisible hand of free market at work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Puistokemisti posted:Invisible hand of free market at wank.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Optimus Prime Rib posted:And they did it for a second time today. And the capital flight is only increasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
now they've ordered the state banks to sell dollars to stop the slide lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 15:07
|
|
