SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: CommanderCricket who wrote (162182)1/9/2012 9:30:34 AM
From: Bearcatbob4 Recommendations  Respond to of 206180
 
"Why did domestic oil production increase under Obama when it fell under Bush, and should Obama get credit for this? I think there are two primary reasons behind this, but I will leave it to readers to discuss. "

1. Prices have remained high for an extended period. The cure for high prices is high prices - ie more production.

2. Fraccing took hold before Obama could stop it - as in New York where it did not take hold soon enough.

3. Technology, technology, technology and technology (see item 1).

Of course it all gets back to simplistic thoughts that state whatever happened on a president's watch is the responsibility of that president - no matter how long term the underlying trend is.

Bob



To: CommanderCricket who wrote (162182)1/9/2012 11:39:29 AM
From: Archie Meeties2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 206180
 
Those graphs remind me of this post.

businessweek.com

Despite quite a bit of noise to the contrary, US oil production and the name or party of the president are two uncorrelated events.

We're always trying to create simple tales when reality is way more complex.

CC, I'm just going to guess that the author is going to try to tell the tale that Bush should get credit for rising oil production.