U.S. economy grew 2.1 percent in 2022, but recession fears linger

[RedFishBlueFish]

Weird Ignorant question as I have been following this "conversation"

in simple terms, (Generically stating) We bought oil when it was like $30/barrel. Filled up the reserves using $USD.

World went to...@#$$. Prices went crazy. We sold them at $100/barrel (Generically) So yes we got a realized profit of $70/ barrel. its true.


2 issues.

1) This is the Strategic reserves not a bank so the realized gains we made with the sale what did we do with it? $ 4billion someone mentioned, did exactly what for the American People? I was paying $5.30 for gas in the summer of 2022, still paying $5.10. The $.20 while a reduction didnt change much. I know in 2019 I was pay $3.85 that was much less than $5.10 just saying.
2) $4 billion to $30 Trillion debt is a joke....... So currently Are we holding the NET realized gains to buy the oil back at a cheaper price? As likely we wont see $30 a barrel for a VERY long time, If ever. So you are sayin that buying it back at $70 a barrel, cause it was less than we sold it a good thing? Currently its $79.38 a barrel..... When are we going to refill our "Strategic Reserves" as I dont "think" we have, I could be wrong though


2 questions

1) Can you cite where we bought back in?
2) Can you confirm what we did with the realized gains from the sale? Is it held to buy back, or put into our usless $30trillion debt and the only why to replenish our reserves is to print more money to buy oil back, causing more inflation?

As ThreeGoofs said above, it appears that the money from the sales goes into the general fund and is used as payments against the deficit. This is from a Wiki article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)

• Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[40]

 

[Kushinator]

Sure, but shouldn't that pretty much always be the trend line? If the population of a nation is growing you better have a consistently increasing number of employed persons.

The post you chose to quote and reply to was in reference to @CLAX1911 's comment on the economy, where a poorly informed poster made the claim

It's not growing it's recovering.

To which @MTAtech informed him that the economy is growing by showing him a snapshot of employment growth exceeding pre-pandemic levels.

I think the more relevant metric is participation.

Depends... demographics are an important consideration:

What we are witnessing is a trend of growth in the population of people 65+, 75+, 85+, etc....

 

[bave]

The post you chose to quote and reply to was in reference to @CLAX1911 's comment on the economy, where a poorly informed poster made the claim

What we are witnessing is a trend of growth in the population of people 65+, 75+, 85+, etc....

1) Fair enough, wasn't posting as a rebuttal or any such but rather an unrequested opinion.

2) I agree, most of the developed world is in a demographic death spiral.

 

[poweRob]

Ok, so you admit he hasn't bought anything and thus there is no realized profit? Ok, thanks. Like I said, you got caught in a bald faced lie.



Trip, I'm gonna just keep dragging you over one of the most transparent lies this forum has seen in a while.



I have read it all, you just admitted that we haven't bought any oil. You can't claim a net profit if you can't show a neutral ending position of the underlying inventory, period.




Heh. You can cite a bucket of *administration* economists and left wing think tanks, but they are in the minority on this one. I am not saying it was a disaster, I am saying it was unnecessary. There is a difference there. We have had policies that range from 1-10 in terms of quality, this one was a 4 or 5, it was relatively neutral in terms of net results. It wasn't TARP that was a 9. It wasn't Biden's last COVID stimulus that was a 2. It was pretty much right in the middle. There are positives, there are negatives, as a whole the concensus has it on the slight net-negative.



Yes, it did do that. Like I said, not all bad. The problem is it cost a lot to accomplish these things.



Sure, but shouldn't that pretty much always be the trend line? If the population of a nation is growing you better have a consistently increasing number of employed persons. I think the more relevant metric is participation.



The research is clear, there has been zero oil repurchases for the SPR and thus no profit has been realized.



Then you are lying. You can't tell me that because you can't tell me at what price and when it will be refilled in the future.

I corrected my tense just after that post so no, it wasn't a lie. It's just you flailing and lying about there having been a lie. Pretty pathetic but par for the typical Bave course. Sad.

 

[bave]

I corrected my tense just after that post so no, it wasn't a lie. It's just you flailing and lying about there having been a lie. Pretty pathetic but par for the Bave course. You never get anything right because you approach everything with a predetermined hack vision. Sad.

You have lied repeatedly on the same subject consistently, you still are.

You claim there is a profit on the SPR, there isn't, it is just that simple.

Look, just admit you were wrong and that you *hope* Biden can produce a profit from the SPR gambit. That's fine, nothing wrong with that position, the problem is your insistent lies about it.

 

[ataraxia]

Recession fears? We are in recession.

Nope. And the chances of one happening are getting less and less globally. I'm so sorry.

The worst fears for global growth may be subsiding

Bolstering such prospects are China’s reopening after pandemic lockdowns, evidence of slowing inflation, and the assured views of some senior European officials that their economies won’t suffer recessions

www.moneycontrol.com

 

[poweRob]

You have lied repeatedly on the same subject consistently, you still are.

You claim there is a profit on the SPR, there isn't, it is just that simple.

Nope. Tense corrected on post #67. You can stop lying now. But we both know you won't.

Look, just admit you were wrong and that you *hope* Biden can produce a profit from the SPR gambit. That's fine, nothing wrong with that position, the problem is your insistent lies about it.

I did on post #67. You just want to play the dingle berry and cling to your lie

 

[ClaraD]

Economy grew 2 trillion (not adjusted), Debt grew 2 trillion (not adjusted). So when Biden tells you about this amazing growth, remind him how he wiped it out with debt.

Trump added more to our debt than any other president that is alive in 4 years.

 

[bave]

So what? It'll be refilled at a profit.

Nope. Tense corrected on post #67. You can stop lying now. But we both know you won't.

I did on post #67. You just want to play the dingle berry and cling to your lie

As above, then immediately after correcting the tense, you continued to push the narrative that there was a profit to in the offing.

 

[poweRob]

As above, then immediately after correcting the tense, you continued to push the narrative that there was a profit to in the offing.

I see. You don't have proper literacy understanding. My apologies. "It'll be" as in "Will be" is the correct tense.

 

[bomberfox]

I am planning to build a bomb shelter to protect my family from the nationwide blast of Republican joy when the recession finally happens. I'm going to disguise the entrance as a Pepsi fountain machine.

Pshh sunset sasparilla or bust.

 

[bave]

I see. You don't have proper literacy understanding. My apologies. "It'll be" as in "Will be" is the correct tense.

The question is not one of tense, but one of stating a possibility as a fact, something you are unable to differentiate between evidently.

If your statement was "It *may* be refilled at a profit" I would withdraw my comment, but that has never been your position. Your position from the beginning was that Biden will empty the SPR and through speculation turn a profit. While that is a possibility, it is far from a certainty. That's your error, but it isn't really an error, it is an intentional lie.

 

[poweRob]

The question is not one of tense, but one of stating a possibility as a fact, something you are unable to differentiate between evidently.

If your statement was "It *may* be refilled at a profit" I would withdraw my comment, but that has never been your position. Your position from the beginning was that Biden will empty the SPR and through speculation turn a profit. While that is a possibility, it is far from a certainty. That's your error, but it isn't really an error, it is an intentional lie.

Let it go and take your well deserved L.

 

[bave]

Let it go and take your well deserved L.

All you have to do is actually be honest, a new concept for you I am sure, assuming you are even capable.

 

[poweRob]

All you have to do is actually be honest, a new concept for you I am sure, assuming you are even capable.

Oh the hypocrisy bubble you live in. . All butthurt because I corrected myself early and you missed it.

 

[bave]

Oh the hypocrisy bubble you live in. . All butthurt because I corrected myself early and you missed it.

Again, hit the Reading Rainbow lessons, but my point is not that you corrected the tense but rather you stick to the position that there is a certain profit to be made here. You intentionally removed and ignored the possibility that this is actually a loss. In other words, you are lying about the potential outcomes.

 

[poweRob]

Again, hit the Reading Rainbow lessons, but my point is not that you corrected the tense but rather you stick to the position that there is a certain profit to be made here. You intentionally removed and ignored the possibility that this is actually a loss. In other words, you are lying about the potential outcomes.

You sincerely believe that posting last "wins" don't you?

 

[bave]

You sincerely believe that posting last "wins" don't you?

You can absolutely get the last post on the topic by simply correcting your statement. You keep trying to avoid it. Let me ask it directly.

Do you agree that Biden could turn a profit on the refilling of the SPR in the future, or he might result in a loss for the taxpayer?

It is that simple, I am just trying to correct your egregiously and intentionally false statements.

 

[Kushinator]

Do you agree that Biden could turn a profit on the refilling of the SPR in the future, or he might result in a loss for the taxpayer?

I'm pretty sure the price paid was far less than the $96/bbl sold.

 

[bave]

I'm pretty sure the price paid was far less than the $96/bbl sold.

C'mon, I expect better from you.

There has been no price paid. There has been zero refilling to date. That's my entire point. You cannot claim this has been a good financial deal for the US (or the inverse) until the transaction is closed. All we have right now is one side of the transaction being done with none of the other half even being started. The administration's stated objective is to refill reserves at below $72 WTI. That's ~10% higher than now. My point is we have no idea if/when that price point will be reached and I take the position that should the global economy stabilize and oil consumption return to something of normalcy, then the price is going to go much higher.

 

[Kushinator]

There has been no price paid.

The reserve wasn't just willed into existence by executive decree. It had to be purchased.

There has been zero refilling to date.

So? That isn't the basis of profit.

I take the position that should the global economy stabilize and oil consumption return to something of normalcy, then the price is going to go much higher.

 

[bave]

The reserve wasn't just willed into existence by executive decree. It had to be purchased.

So? That isn't the basis of profit.

I get what you are saying, however the idea of the SPR is not as a speculation tool, or an investment, but rather a strategic resource. Meaning, the sale of an asset has to be replaced and thus the profit or loss should be determined by the return to status quo, not from a LIFO accounting method.

 

[Exactice]

Feel free to do the research. You seem to care.

All I can tell you is that we will net a gain from the sale and refilling of the NSR. And the dollars are real, and will go to cover the budget, since they’ll be returned to the general fund.

Sure I am curious.

I just thought someone actually knew.

Seems though you are speculating as well as you stated. "We Will net" meaning you aren't sure either as you are not sure it happened.


As for the real dollar, so the $4billion went back into our general fund, rather than an allocated Strategic reserve fund. The $4billion disappears into oblivion and if we have to re buy to refill we have to print it....seems awfully inefficient?

 

[Exactice]

As ThreeGoofs said above, it appears that the money from the sales goes into the general fund and is used as payments against the deficit. This is from a Wiki article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)

• Another section of the Bipartisan Budget Act (Section 403), enacted in 2015, mandates SPR crude oil sales for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 on a volumetric basis, rather than on a dollar basis, as specified in Section 404. The revenues from sales authorized under section 403 will be deposited into the general fund of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.[40]

Thank you very much! @RedFishBlueFish @Threegoofs for your responses.

Interesting......as to me the term of Strategic Reserves doesn't match the intent.

1) Selling for a net profit is good, but I would figure those net profits would be used exclusively to re buy at a lower price, since its a strategic reserve separate from the General Funds/Expenses.
2) Comingling funds generally is not good... Right? Do as I say not as I do???/
3) This is an SBF ponzi, robbing Peter to pay Paul, you take the profits from here (SPR) to deposit in a general fund thats drowning in debt.

oh well anyways....

Back on topic... 2.1 GDP growth...... but does that account for 7-9% inflation that means we are net negative of 5-7%? Our growth is negative of the inflation.....is that a win?

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Thank you very much! @RedFishBlueFish @Threegoofs for your responses.

Interesting......as to me the term of Strategic Reserves doesn't match the intent.

1) Selling for a net profit is good, but I would figure those net profits would be used exclusively to re buy at a lower price, since its a strategic reserve separate from the General Funds/Expenses.
2) Comingling funds generally is not good... Right? Do as I say not as I do???/
3) This is an SBF ponzi, robbing Peter to pay Paul, you take the profits from here (SPR) to deposit in a general fund thats drowning in debt.

oh well anyways....

Back on topic... 2.1 GDP growth...... but does that account for 7-9% inflation that means we are net negative of 5-7%? Our growth is negative of the inflation.....is that a win?

The Wiki article cited also says, "Since 2015, Congress has been selling the oil in the reserve to fund the deficit, in unpublicized sales. The U.S. Department of Energy has run at least seven sales since 2017, selling 132 million barrels, or about 18.2% of what had been in the reserve." So, whether it's a good idea or not, that's what has been occurring.

I agree, 2.1% GDP at 5-7% inflation is not a win.