‘Oil sharks sit off Brixham coast’. ‘Dear oh dear’ I thought as We passed the newsagent windows. And like almost all of these things I yawned and resigned myself to this old saying ‘it’s like this m? ja vu across again’. So is there any credence to the reality that bad boys are sitting off the seacoast ripping us off? We can’t believe I are even giving this space but here goes: harga minyak terkini
First of all, when oil was influenced to $147 last yr the resulting petrol price (which was blamed on oil) was less than it is today. Elementary oil is priced at $77. 07 today. (1) Explain that then. Want I go on?
Second of all, this would just be true if we had a deficit of supply and an increase in demand. Neither is true, so I definitely could end this column here.
Finally, to my knowledge there are no product berths in the UK competent of taking vessels of this size and of course the real reason they can be there is because this area of the coastline is one of not many places in The european countries where ship to deliver businesses are actually permitted at sea.
Before I make my way to the real culprit you might like to consider how petrol prices are where they can be. Currently VAT and tax represent just over 70p per litre and this will rise to over 72p when VALUE-ADDED TAX returns to normal. (2) So forget the ‘sharks, ‘ petrol without duty would be a mere 35p.
In any event, part of the fault offered for the price increase is the increase in demand, yet Mister Darling’s reason for increasing duty was detailed in the budget as: “Fuel duties in 2008-09 were? 0. 4 billion below their 2008 Pre-Budget Survey projection and were lower than in 2007-08. Seeing that fuel duty is recharged on a per litre basis, this reflects a decrease in the demand for fuel. inches
As a result because demand is low he is saying this individual needs to charge more, yet we are being told prices are growing because of demand. Furthermore, the budget reveals that petrol will rise by 1p over indexation for four years! So We assume they believe demand it’s still low and can forecast four years in advance. Produce strength!
And so who else has their hand in your pocket sized? Last year oil prices ended uphad been blamed on global demand surging, blah, blah. Yet at that time, the supplies were all full and oil tankers sat in Louisiana and Iraq with nowhere to go.
Goldman sachs (who used to run the most significant item index in the world) touted a $200 essential oil price which everyone fell into for, except this steering column. However, very mysteriously, Goldman Sachs were ‘neutral’ prove oil stocks (i. electronic. they believed they were not worth investing more into).
How could they assume that the firms delivering the commodity probably would not benefit from the price of that commodity (oil) doubling in price? Their share price should have been likely to soar. Perhaps because they didn’t believe it?
And so I determined to research the reason. To cut a long story short the reason was speculative investors in commodities specifically a certain type of investor.
In 2003 the total amount involving invested into products via index traded strategies was $13bn. In 08 if this had grown to $17bn it would have been an increase. The total however was $260bn. So we got $13bn in history and $247bn in five years!
In 1936 US our elected representatives passed the commodity exchange act with the understanding that speculators wasn’t able to rule the futures markets. Sadly, the CTFC took steps which have now allowed these speculators almost endless access to the futures and options markets. Wall Street finance institutions were given exemptions from speculative position limits (they are blocked from trading too much).