Thanks Jane.

digg

Thanks to DWBartoo for the initial digg.

Morning Jane

don’t know what time the vote is but today the whole caucus votes

The House Democratic Caucus meets today to vote on Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) challenge to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman of the Energy & Commerce Cmte., as well as assigning other committee chairmen. The House & Senate are in session considering post-election legislative issues.
via CSPAN

Ooh…Jane said, “spanking”.

Wow, all kinds of surprises. Let’s hope Waxman can pull it off!

My 17 year old daughter surprised me at breakfast by saying she wants to go to the inauguration because it’s something she can talk about the rest of her life. I’ve booked a room in Williamsburg, VA (the closest I could find this late!) and am working on shuttle service to DC on the big day. I’m really looking forward to this.

Jane -

Any idea of what time that caucus meeting is scheduled for today? A bigger question: does Waxman have Obama’s backing?

Hi Jane,

Whats a Wag?

First, Al Wynn. Next, John Dingell.

We’ve scored more wins in the last few months than the Blue Dogs have against Bush in eight years.

Very nice. Enjoy it!

Anyone know what time the Big Vote is?

and the Villagers loves them some Dingell, he’s the Broder of the House doncha know :D

If Waxman should win the Energy and Commerce committee chair, would he lose Oversight and Reform?

both chairs are considered ‘premier’ seats, so probably.

here are Oversight Dems, by order of Seniority (?) am embarassed I’ve never heard of Towns, maybe NY firedogs can weigh in

WAG = Wild A**ed Guess

Versus a SWAG which is a Scientific Wild A**ed Guess (meaning there’s some actual logic behind the guess)

Versus Jane’s usage of wag as in wagging tongue/talking head.

GO Democrats……..Ain’t it nice to see democrats in power……….I have lived for this…….

The Hill confirms Waxman would give up Oversight Chair -

fyi - Towns backed Dingell yesterday but is now openly lobbying for Chair - 26 years in House

Evidence of prior & present oil price manipulation:

When oil was at $150 per barrel, oil executives claimed it was based on supply/demand issues. They were simply lying.

Here we are a year later. Oil is busting below $50, yet miles driven by Americans is only down 3% over year ago levels.

In a court of law, they’d call that CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

Can we have the ill-gotten gains back?

It’s the oil companies who should be bailing out the economy. Follow the money.

My oil price forecast was wrong. During the summer I was saying, to the incredulity of most listeners, that oil prices would be back down to $50/bbl within 5 years.

Blue Dog. Wag. Good one. And the wag was funny.

I don’t in any way want to defend the oil companies, but do you have a link?

AFAIK, oil went to a $150 barrel on world demand, not US demand. AFAIK, it’s sliding because of world demand. Another issue you want to factor in is that most of the world still has to buy it in dollar denominated assets.

That ignores the fact the in the face of rapidly rising world demand for oil during the 1990s, oil prices were dead flat until the U.S. invaded Iraq.

What caused that?

Was supply flat too?

With no facts but 65 years of watching oil companies pull one scam after another to enrich the owners I will weigh in with this. The fuckers were ripping us off.

Thank You, Dakine. The urban dictionary had it as Wives and Girlfriends.

I am just seeking accurate information.

If you think plunger’s 18 is correct, (and s/he may be correct, I’m not an oil expert) please provide a link.

Waxy Wins! But I will miss him in Oversight.

If you recall the “surge” in Oil prices co-incidently occured at the height of the economic stimulus checks being sent out. I said it at the time, it was the biggest Rip off of Americans in history. Now the entire economy is paying the price.

Oil demand & supply rose apace during the 1990s-early 2000s. Otherwise prices would not have been flat. The world is awash in a sea of oil and barring intervention by some non-market force, oil prices should probably trade in a small range.

So the game changer was the invasion of Iraq, which not only cut back on supply directly, but led to the kind of speculation that plunger refers to. Contributing to oil price volatility is the relatively long lag of the supply & demand response to fluctuations in price. So they tend to overshoot on both the upside & downside. And when one of those overshooting cycles gets underway, speculators always follow, exascertaing the cycle.

There are several other commodities whose prices also react similarly–long lags.

Demand fluctuations are also likely to exascerbate the cycle in both directions, as high oil prices contribute to economic weakness and low oil prices contribute to economic booms.

So what ever happened to the Saudis? For years they convinced OPEC to keep oil prices in a narrow range to prevent the kind of price variations that destabilize oil producers.

A wag is what the Dingell’s tail does after he eats your baby.

It would also support your point if you had any data that oil production in Iraq was increasing to the point that it was depressing the price. I’m not aware of any data that supports that, but again I’m no oil expert.

I think the point you made that our invasion/occupation of Iraq pushed prices north is a good one.

Ted Stevens speaking in the Senate that convicted felon (CSPAN1)

have you read hugh’s list entry #365: Speculation in crude oil futures markets?

It’s the oil companies who should be bailing out the economy. Follow the money.

Around 80% of the world’s oil goes through national oil companies not the Exxons. Those who really jacked up oil prices were the investment banks like Goldman Sachs, so called non-commercial traders, who entered into the future markets. Through the natural leveraging of the oil futures markets where margins were only 5-7% (i.e. they could buy a futures contract by only putting this much down), they drove prices relentless up. They didn’t make their money off the final price of the futures contract. That mostly went to the oil producer. They profited from the difference between what they bought the contract at and what they sold it for. Pursuing this shaving, they were, since 2004 to mid 2008, responsible for a capital transfer in the trillions to countries that are both highly unstable and anti-American. It has always surprised me that investment banks and other financial players were given a pass on this and never questioned about it. It is why every time I hear someone talk about how corporations (like the telecoms in helping the government spy on Americans) acted “patriotically”, I want to know what drugs they are on. If we have learned nothing else in the Bush years, it is that corporations act in completely amoral ways and are perfectly willing to do great destruction to the country as a whole to gain a few cents on the dollar in short term profits.

cspan2 for senate.

The world is awash in a sea of oil and barring intervention by some non-market force, oil prices should probably trade in a small range.

I’m interested in your take on this 2007 piece in the NYT’s.

Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand

The world is awash in a sea of oil and barring intervention by some non-market force, oil prices should probably trade in a small range.

i don’t understand this…. because of the investment required to bring new sources to market, i’d think that would mean that cycles of boom and bust would be the natural market (wo intervention) results?

Stevens handing pages of speech to aide. Font size on sheets must be huge. Perhaps a few sentences on each page. Blah, blah, blah, I was great for Alaska, blah blah blah

Thanks.

If you have the time, it sounds like a great topic for an Oxdown post.

Goldman Sachs is still made out of teflon as far as the media is concerned. IIRC, their partners are talking about not taking bonuses this year. I don’t trust them, but it plays well in the legacy media.

fyi - House Agriculture hearing on credit derivatives - opening statements in progress.

Thank you.

Prime Minister’s Questions on CSPAN 3. If it weren’t for the accent one would think it was a discussion about bailout here. Banks in England are doing the same thing banks here are. Not lending, paying bonuses, etc with bailout money. Sheesh

We need kick ass Dems in the chairs of all these committees. - Berman should go to, very good but Reps overrun him, and who best for Oversight?? That’s the big one now as long as Hoyer the horrible still rules.

I’m getting a Ag comm press conference from your link.

Did you see the House Committee testimony on this topic? A panel of 4 industry experts were in solid agreement that US speculators were responsible for a significant percentage of oil’s price-spike. Congress has yet to take any action.

CBC, CAFTA supporter (which got him some challenges on the left), against net neutrality (sits on Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet), good on poverty issues (his district contains Bed Stuy), worked really hard to get EPA testing downtown after 9/11. Hillary supporter in the primaries, which got him a primary challenger. Won easily anyway.

it’s working for me. here is the direct link - maybe that will work

Talking Points Memo, Atrios and OpenLeft have reported that WAXMAN WON!!!!!

p.s. am now recording audio in case there is no other archive.

No but I have been writing about it for more than a year.

selise & BooRadley,

Shucks. I had a whole long comment typed & went to check the article BR linked, forgetting I would lose what I typed.

Let me try to do it again.

Because so many different influences are important in determining oil prices, my anchor is the long periods when they are stable. That’s why the 1990s is key. Oil demand & supply both rose rapidly and prices were stable. That suggests, selise, that large price fluctuations are not inherent in balancing supply/demand. They may be at some point. I look only at macro, so am only vaguely aware of where new supply is, at what price it is profitably extractable, and how long til it comes onstream. I did hear such an expert last July and his forecast was wrong and mine was much better.

BR, large fluctuations in prices have ripple effects that can last for a long time. Article writers break in at some arbitrary point, as if there was no yesterday and no lessons had been learned from history & go for there. Also, institutionally, reporters have a hard time getting articles published which are countertrend. So articles like the one you linked are another factor exascerbating the cycle.

Rollcall has it.

Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) has ousted Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as Democratic lawmakers voted 137-122 Thursday morning to hand the gavel of the powerhouse panel to its second-ranking member.

The vote marks a stunning rebuke of the seniority system Democrats have honored for decades. It also constitutes a win, of sorts, for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is ideologically aligned with Waxman and has clashed repeatedly with Dingell.

Me likey!

Ironically, Waxman could end up saving Detroit from their own determination to destroy their future. If he can force them to make world-class cars in terms of energy efficiency, that could provide new jobs developing alternative energy technologies/systems, helping to lead the way in reinventing our post-peak oil economy for the 21st century. Dingell may be a loyal water carrier for Big Auto interests but that may not be in the best interests of a vibrant transportation sector.

That link works. Thanks.

glad to hear it. i also had a major hassle with the feed this morning. eventually called the committee’s chair’s non-dc office. they were also having trouble with the stream, but at my request called dc and eventually it gotten straightened out.

You’ve probably seen this, but just in case, here’s a CNN article referring to the June hearing. It was in subcommittee, but was televised on CSPAN.

The world is awash in a sea of oil and barring intervention by some non-market force, oil prices should probably trade in a small range.

i don’t understand this…. because of the investment required to bring new sources to market, i’d think that would mean that cycles of boom and bust would be the natural market (wo intervention) results?

ah, i had assumed that modern energy markets were subject to intervention and so could not be used as evidence of what unmanipulated markets do. my thinking was very simplistic and based on an intuition influenced by practical systems process eng (not economics, not energy). goes sorta like this: a perturbation from a steady state, if large enough, would affect investment in bringing new sources to market (exploration, drilling, building pipelines, refineries - all that), but importantly with a time lag. for example: in the case of a recession: demand goes down, so prices go down, so investment goes down. because investments in this market are costly and take time to come on line, this would tend to limit the ability of supply to respond to increasing demand when the recession ends. there could be an unlimited supply of oil - but unless it shows up at the gas station it’s not a supply to the demand for gasoline. so prices go up which stimulates investment, the longer the lead time of investment to bringing product to market, the more the prices will overshoot. the more the price overshoots the more investment. the more investment, the more likely supply is to overshoot which then brings down prices and the whole thing repeats in reverse on the downside. it all depends on the time lag (and stupidity of people making investment decisions).

but obviously, i have no clue how it actually works.

You raise good points, and there are several important times when the oil market has behaved as you described. But there have also been long periods when that has not been the case.

i guess we’d have to know the nature of any significant market manipulation…. thanks.