Bush MisAdministration Manipulates Pre-Election Gas Prices
This probably comes as NO SURPRISE, but all evidence points to the Bu$h MisAdministration being behind the gas price manipulation in the run-up to the election. So who's behind the "miracle" drop in gasoline prices? Looks like none other than former Goldman Sachs CEO and current Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson...
Gasoline Price Manipulation Before the Elections
Is Goldman Sachs manipulating the gasoline futures market to push prices down before the November elections? It sure looks that way. An article appeared this Saturday in the New York Times pointing to some unusual trading by Goldman Sachs in the gasoline futures market. As Raymond Keller, who spotted the article, points out, "They always hide the good stuff in the low circulation Saturday edition." What’s Goldman doing? (full story below the fold)
Here’s how the Times reports it: "Change in Goldman Sachs Index Was Factor in Gas Price Drop"
""Politics and worries about oil supplies may have caused gasoline prices to go up at the pump earlier this year, but one big investment bank quietly helped their rapid drop in recent weeks, according to some economists, traders and analysts.Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the G.S.C.I., said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.
"They started unwinding their positions, and those other longs also rushed to the door at the same time," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. The August announcement by Goldman Sachs caught some traders by surprise. The firm said in early June that it planned to roll its positions in the harbor contract into another futures contract, the reformulated gasoline blendstock, which is replacing the harbor contract at the end of the year because of changes to laws about gasoline additives. Later in June, Goldman said it had rolled a third of its gasoline holdings into the reformulated contracts but would make further announcements as to whether the remainder would be rolled over. Then in August, the bank said it would not roll over any more positions into gasoline and would redistribute the weighting into other petroleum products...
Some traders speculated that Goldman might have been concerned about the liquidity of the reformulated contract and whether other traders would embrace it because there were so few contracts outstanding. The open interest, or number of futures contracts taken out, has increased ninefold in the reformulated contract since then.
Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.""
A sell-off of more than $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts? Let’s put it this way, a $6 billion trade is not decided on at the lower levels of the firm. Keller provides some insight into the curious timing of this trade.""pResident George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Paulson to the position on June 28, 2006 and he was sworn into office on July 10, 2006. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. So what does Goldman do just weeks after Paulson is sworn in as Treasury Secretary? It announces a subtle move that drives down gasoline prices, short-term. Nice move, coming just months before the election.""
Now it may be hard to swallow for some that market manipulations go on, but they do at all levels. Penny stock promoters cook up their schemes, and power players have their schemes. In traders jargon, it’s called painting the tape. Indeed, the Washington Post has revealed that the government has formed something that is casually known as the Plunge Protection Team. PPT is supposed to jump in and buy stocks when things are unruly. Ronald Reagan formed the PPT when he signed Executive Order 12631. It’s just another way of painting the tape (Using your tax money, or newly printed Federal Reserve dollars, of course). Goldman is a member of the secretive PPT.But some just don't believe these kinds of manipulations go on. I have had some email discussions in recent days with some pretty sophisticated economists who don’t believe Goldman has manipulated the gasoline market. Their argument goes: "I will continue to be an economist and look at the supply and demand issues."
My reply has been, Goldman Sachs understands supply and demand – and they also understand trading. When you sell-off $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts, you are going to have an impact – as the New York Times story correctly pointed out. That is an awful lot of supply. Further, this type of aggressive selling will result in selling by others who will receive margin calls they can’t meet. And by trend followers, who will suddenly dump gasoline and other commodities. This is, indeed, exactly what is happening. Goldman Sachs didn’t get to be Goldman by not understanding this stuff. Supply and demand can explain this manipulation completely.
My email correspondents also raise a few other points.
They ask, "Why would Goldman Sachs trade this way and lose money?" The answer here is that Goldman doesn’t lose money. This is a managed commodity index. Goldman manages the index, but the actual money put up comes from institutions, hedge funds and other unlucky saps that trusted Goldman to manage the commodity index as a hedge against inflation – not to bail out of $6 billion in contracts over a few weeks. The result: Unlucky saps – Major losses. Goldman – Zero losses and their man running the Treasury. Which side of this trade would you want to be on?
But, my email correspondents continue on with one more charge: "Are you trying to tell me that refiners are trying to deplete their inventories and leave themselves with real supply problems in the future? That does not make sense to me." In fact, depleting inventories is exactly what refiners would do. If the price of gasoline is plunging in the futures market, they are going to push out the door as much inventory as they can, to make room for the new cheap gasoline they can buy up on the futures market.
Bottom line, Goldman had to know they were going to plunge gasoline prices short-term with this type of trading. This smells to me like a Paulson operation all the way. He is the ultimate behind the scenes operator if there ever was one, and future biographies of him are very likely to note such.
OK, just to get this straight.... Paulson is nominated and confirmed in June, Goldman announces in June it was rolling over gasoline futures contracts and did so for a third of the contracts, then by early Aug announces its unwinding its gasoline position into other petroleum products, in the process dumping $6 BILLION worth of futures contracts on the market (75% of its position)...
So I ask, who's behind the "miracle" of lower gas prices? Answer = the Bush MisAdministration!
- CactusPat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend









People are getting wiser
I don't think they fooled hardly anyone with this 'drop' in gas prices. People know it's temporary and will go back up sky high after the election in November.
I was reading my hometown newspaper on-line, and they walked the streets interviewing people who were pumping gas asking them if they were happy with the drop in gas prices. Everyone they interviewed was very skeptical and said they predicted it was done on purpose before the election, and that they would go back up afterwards. So alot of people are wisening up finally.
Let's make this PAINFULLY obvious!
So, at 9:00 am on Nov. 8th from a blue state, my girlfriend calls me and laughingly tells me the price of unleaded went up $.26/Gal. at the corner gas station OVERNIGHT. She voted Republican, BTW. Yes, even Republicans filled their tanks on the 7th because they knew what was going to happen...
alternative energies
The issue is that there is so much money invested in the oil industry and all the products that come from oil industries that no one wants to even think about change. These companies are turning billions in profits and the people that run them are richer than rich. Even some of our politicians bleed out lots of money from this system either secretly, with investments, or down the road after holding office with nice cushy jobs for swaying things this way or that. Do you really think any of them want to change this? I mean really. The only thing they do is stall us by saying we need to be less dependent on foreign oil. Well this certainly is very true and our future even depends on it. But notice that we do not get suggestions to change the system. We only get greedy little reasons to drill in pristine sacred lands that are our heritage and our future so they can keep the train a rollin' so to say. Oh yea baby keep the oil pumpin' and the dollars flyin'. It is us who have to come up with alternatives on our own because the system will not change until it has too (no more oil or no more money), or until we make the system change. This is about a system put in place long ago with elite American families and oil cartels and car makers, etc to create a system of wealth and usefulness to the point of becoming so dependent that we the people have no choice. now that was all fine when it was affordable but the greedy get greedier when you are talking about billions. They are even willing to stage wars and sacrifice our sons and daughters for this to continue. Notice the environmentally friendly commercials showing up on tv from the oil companies about the millions of dollars spent on researching alternatives. Well that is total not yearly and they are making billions yearly. That is why we have to come up with the answers because they won't. There are people out there trying to do just that but we have to let it be known when we find real alternatives and we have to actually make the changes on our own. Greed and comfort do not like to dance with change but if we the people want there to be change then we have to make it happen.
Alternative Energy? Use Oil.
Citizens already have ways to make HUGE impacts.
Here is one way:
Jim, I wish my landlord would pay attention
to this.
My livingroom ceiling is 3/4 inch wooden beams with the roof shingles
on the other side- no attic.
He "doesn't want to pay for insulation".
;-(
Sometimes it takes too long
Sometimes it takes too long for the payback to motivate folks. Other times it takes just a year or two, but folks don't bother to run the numbers. Ashame.
Correction
The commercial I referred to in this article said 28 billion over 5 years. I appologize for that mistake. I thought it said millions. The ad did not state if that was a consecutive 5 years. There may be a sizeable part of this for marketing this green image. This company does appear to be trying to look for other solutions at least publically. However they are also going to spend 37 billion on expansions of refineries, exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico over the next decade, while lobbying to drill in alaska according to a time magazine article.
shakerdog,
shakerdog,
The Alternatives have ALREADY been found. (I offered one that is earth shattering: properly insulating one's home.) We each must now simply implement them.
(This does not let the rat bastards off the hook for making life harder, but unless we each start looking inward, we are lost. I'm not sure what folks are waiting for. The "Alternatives" are here.)
Which energy need would you like to solve for yourself? I'm happy to discuss this at length. In fact, to the point where you might consider suicide as a way out ;)
Jim
I seem to remember holding
I seem to remember holding my breath until I turned blue...;-)
LOLLLL!
ENA
.
.
.
Energy Nerd Alert:
-Beware anything that resembles a question about alternative energy.
-Oh hell, beware anything that mentions the phrase, "alternative energy".
Hydrogen is plentiful, free,
Hydrogen is plentiful, free (at the source) and "clean." What's the holdup with you carbon-based Spock types, and its development as THE energy source?
Or is hydrogen too "Newtonian" for serious consideration by the Quantum crowd?...;-)
http://www.hydrogenenergycenter.org/
Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy per se.
Hydrogen is a clean and awesome placeholder.
-You need energy to separate hydrogen from a water molecule.
-The same energy you will get back when you let it recombine with oxygen.
Hence its just a placeholder, though an awesome one.
------
The question then is what energy do you use to get the hydrogen in the first place. If it's wind and solar, then the question reverts back to what percentage of energy can come from wind and solar.
(I should note that OIL is being thought of as a source for hydrogen, so Big Oil will have a hand in a hydrogen infrastructure).
Wind energy is complete as far as I'm concerned. We have the technology (turn a crank on a generator) and we can calculate how much energy we can gain from wind farms throughout the USA. So too maintenance costs, etc. I do not see this getting any cheaper with advancing technology. Turn a crank to move a magnet through a wire to produce electricity. It's pretty straightforward.
Solar panels may become far more economical with advancing technology.
------
Regardless, conservation makes most proposals feasible.
-House heating blows away its electrical needs in much of the USA. INSULATE.
-Cars blow away most other energy needs. Invest in mass transit, bicycle infrastructure, electric motorcycles/bicycles, single person cars, etc. This requires a social shift however not a technological one.
-etc.
------
Thanks for the link. I'll muck around there longer when I get a chance.
Hydrogen, even as just a placeholder, DOES allow for alternatives where they had little chance without it. Namely, using solar or wind to produce a fuel that is energy dense enough to be portable. i.e. hydrogen for cars.
The problem is, IF solar and wind can not even provide enough energy to supply demand for NON-portable energy (electricity for homes and industry, etc.) there is no extra energy requiring a placeholder like hydrogen.
So again, the question really goes back to what can alternative SOURCES and CONSERVATION do for us? (Keeping in mind that hydrogen awaits as a nicety for logistical purposes).
Jim, I know that the
Jim, I know that the technology of splitting hydrogen away from it's parent molocule is not "economically" feasible yet, but that was not my point. Hydrocarbon fuel supply is finite (unless there is another mass extinction), while the supply of pure hydrogen is virtually inexhaustible.
The ethanol promoters are looking to replace in-the-ground fuel sources with above-the-ground fuel sources, which will also require a separate source of existing energy to harvest and refine. Other fields of research into a source of "alternative" energy pretty much face the same set of restraints, with the exception (as you point out) of solar and wind. The main problems with the latter, however, are night and doldrums...;-)
Why not use Occam's Razor as a guide and go for the obvious? I have a feeling that, as with any new technology, hydrogen production will become less expensive with time, and improved process refinements. There are many interesting, and encouraging, new discoveries in this field of research happening constantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kanzius
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
My snide remarks above were not meant as an "instant answer" to the problem of finding a replacement source of energy, but as a prod about the direction we should be looking towards. Afterall, Isaac Asimov solved this problem decades ago...;-)
I've been running ragged the
I've been running ragged the last couple of days so I did not have a chance to add some emoticons ;)
Nor to add all the ifs ands or butts ;)
I would still offer that there will never be a new technology that will make separating hydrogen from its parent molecule any easier. I say this because it is a simple matter of conservation of energy.
Hydrogen remains a great placeholder. A portable fuel. A battery if you will. It is wonderful because it allows HEAVYYYYYYY energy producers such as solar and wind to create portable fuel (hydrogen). The solar cells required to run an electric car of CONVENTIONAL design take up a massive area. Use those cells to break down water (available at every home) and you have a lightweight fuel to run an electric/hydrogen car of CONVENTIONAL design.
I emphasis CONVENTIONAL design because a social/cultural change that would allow for a change in what a vehicle need be, could allow ANY fuel to be an ALTERNATIVE fuel.
For example: a one man, 55 mph, super aerodynamic "car" has already gotten 2000 miles per gallon of gas. This occurred decades ago. It had no heat, no air conditioning, was infinitely slow to accelerate, etc. In other words it was not a car in the conventional sense but could, with cultural change, allow a certain segment of society to be mobile on a ridiculously small amount of fuel. Similar 55mph "cars" have used no fuel at all: They are peddled.
---------------------------
If I might act as cruise director: It might be instructive if folks discuss why or why not the extraction of hydrogen will ever get cheaper. I would further that this question is intimately (if not identically) connected to the conservation of energy principle.
I was chuckling at your references to Spock et al. Once again, I've been hitting and running at the keyboard and leaving out swaths of thoughts, lols, etc...
;)
I'm seriously thinking about
I'm seriously thinking about holding my breath again, until She Who Must Be Obeyed gives us another source of heat. Allowing the discovery of fire was a good starting point, but combustion has lost its attraction (except to moths). We, the Great Unwashed, demand something more shiny...
LOL! See Below (way below as I already posted).
But while you're here:
I'm cheering on hydrogen as well!
I'm just adding the caveats.
(I'll have to ponder that wiki article.)
Analogy alert:
By the way, I'm all for switching to hydrogen!
It allows all the alternative "fuels" a means to make it into portable devices.
I would pose:
The source is solar, wind, coal, oil, etc. to either drive electrons in wires, separate hydrogen from its parent molecule, create steam to turn turbines to spin magnets inside coils to drive electrons in wire ;), etc.
Unless you mine it or tap somebody elses electric lines.
I should add:
That Hydrogen and Electricity are not sources UNLESS you find some free hydrogen somewhere or tap somebody else's electric lines.
When you get a chance, check
When you get a chance, check this out:
http://thesietch.org/mysietch/power2050/category/alternative-energy/
Is nanotech the answer...?
Not sure BUT ...the amount
Not sure BUT
...the amount of solar reaching the earth is MASSIVE so here it will only take a technological advance to make solar cells cheap enough to make them THE solution.
Then again, folks may renormalize and each require a car sized blender, 20 foot large screen TV (for jimmy at least), etc. If that occurs then the amount of earth blanketed by solar cells will again lead to crisis as it will blot out the sunlight needed by plants!
Maybe we can work from the
Maybe we can work from the other end of the supply/demand equation, and produce nanopeople.
;) ;) ;)
Now yer thinkin!
P.S.
The electric grid is so extensive it is already being used as a PLACEHOLDER for solar.
You can now buy solar panels that you simply plug into your house WITHOUT batteries. Instead of a complete solar system you simply produce electricity and when/if your panels produce more than your house uses the power simply flows back through the grid turning your meter backwards.
Common Sense Energy
Now insulation is a simple "common sense" solution of which there are many that we all could do to cut down on consumption. Or even better we could buid then right in the first place. You see the powers that be want to blame us for consumption and why things are the way they are but the truth is speculation and other growing economies in the world are also contributing. But yes, with the advent of the industrial revolution and the automobile they began addicting us to oil, and cars, and highways, etc. But if we were to use some "common sense" we could cut down on consumption considerably.
First of all, the Meriam - Webster definition of common sense
Main Entry: common sense Function:noun Date:1726
: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
A couple of things right off the top of my head would be
1: IT was once talked about but never done - If corporations stagered hours for workers the roads would not be packed to the brim and traffic would flow more smoothly, thus cutting down consumption of fuel in stop and go traffic
2: Road maintenance - the timing and the way they squeeze things down to one lane, etc also causes traffic stop and go which causes more consumption. How 'bout some type of poratable overpass (maybe in sections) instead?
3: There are a ton of products made from some part of oil. If we used environmentally friendly substances to replace these, this would help us off oil and create many many jobs
Lets quit being afraid of change and create even more jobs and industries that help the earth and us at the same time. That my friends is called common sense. We have the technology, we have the substances, the only thing we do not have is cooperation from the people in control.
Another issue is that if all we do is cut down and not create new and better systems then those powers that be will just raise their prices because they too are addicted to something........lots of money! Lets's wean them off of that as we wean ourselves off their expensive poluting oudated systems. .............."common sense"