No, because I could easily do what you did: cherry-pick a few sources that backed my point of view. It wouldn’t mean a thing, as yours didn’t.
I couldn’t help but notice that only one of your sources was anything other than an opinion (you know; that horrible thing you loathe) from a person who has no expertise on the subject. Quoting blogs isn’t very persuasive.
In truth, I’ve heard both sides of the argument on multiple occasions. But rarely have I heard an opinion from a credible source, and rarely one without an agenda. I thereby fall back on the simple fact (mentioned in multiple economic textbooks) that controlled markets cannot conform to the law of supply and demand, therefore, it is unsurprising that the market for petroleum products does not.
You can paint this as weasel-y evasion of your noble and forthright demand if you wish. And you know what? I’m almost bored enough to troll the net for four examples that support my position. Almost. Maybe I will later, if only to hear you sneer and say, “So what?” (It’s a certainty that you would.)
The first quote was from Chevron. Not exactly an unbiased source.
The second quote was from CNN–and it stated that the view that supply and demand drove prices was far from being universally endorsed. In fact, it stated that the supply and demand for gasoline futures may be what is driving the market.
The third and fourth quotes were from bloggers who didn’t have any stated credentials.
I’d gladly state that I was wrong (what you crave) if someone posted links to any two respected economists or analysts of the oil industry, saying that the petroleum product market was, in fact, driven primarily by supply and demand.
If you are unwilling (or unable) to support you personal opinions with outside facts that others can verify along with the sources on which you rely for those facts, then you need to stay out of Great Debates.
“My post is my cite” is an old theme on this board for people who really just want to shout down other posters with their own beliefs, regardless of facts.
You started this thread, but if you have no interest in participating in a reasonable fashion, it will be closed or moved.
I didn’t mean to start a kerfuffle in here. However, you haven’t provided any evidence that the market for gasoline is controlled. You mention NYC apartments, which I grant you is a famous example of a controlled market. But it doesn’t follow that gasoline is one as well.
That won’t draw a Warning, but making snide remarks that misrepresent what the Mods have said might.
No one is going to be told that they are out of line for challenging the validity of a statement by another poster. One is freee to note that it is wrong, incorrect, mistaken, or otherwise does not conform to facts. One may not say that another poster has chosen to make a false statement.
I am more than willing to conform to this standard the moment I see that other posters are doing so. As yet, I see no evidence of that other than in isolated instances. People here don’t scream for citations if they agree with the poster–only if they don’t. Therefore, the bleating for citations is an expression of disagreement rather than an honest request for verification of stated facts/opinions. It’s a way of saying “you’re wrong!!!” without the necessity of saying why or of actually bothering to try to refute someone’s argument.
In any event, I originally asked a question without offering my opinion on the answer to that question as anything but my own viewpoint. Things have gone rather rapidly into the toilet from there, though, and I’m sure that since I’m a newbie, you blame me for that. (You won’t bother to examine others’ posts in that regard, I’m sure.)
Look, say the word and I’ll stay the hell away from these boards. The few honest discussions haven’t been worth the mud-flinging in the majority of threads. I was under the delusion that this place might be different from other internet discussion boards. Why I thought that is beyond me. There’s just as much cliquishness, self-importance, and hypocritical application of and adherence to so-called “rules” as I’ve observed elsewhere. You folks are a profound disappointment.
Mods: I just thought it was funny how the national debate reflected this debate and wasn’t making commentary on mod action. But I’ll zip it.
greenslime: I think people are trying to get you to understand what a bare assertion fallacy is. Starting a thread with your own opinions/observations is one thing. Continuing to argue those points without being able to point to anything to back them up puts you in a position of arguing from faith or esoteric knowledge, which is fine for your own perspective but isn’t persuasive in a debate.
I’m not trying to moderate you. I’m trying to point out that if you are going to refuse to back up your statements with some external source then the discussion* can’t* go anywhere- there isn’t anything for people to ‘sink their teeth into’, the same problem we get with every bare assertion. And making claims deriding any information others might post before they post it isn’t persuasive either- that amounts to another bare assertion. You’ll get into a position of telling experts in a field that they are wrong for what looks like no reason at all, and experts won’t take that seriously.
A non-mainstream theory can be very interesting if you can back it up with* something*. Crackpot scientist, your own research, whatever. But again, there is no debate possible without some specifics. If it is all just your opinion, the only debate we can have is, “oh yeah, that’s just what you think!”, which gets redundant fast.
Interesting, when oil prices rise to too high, Saudi Arabia usually steps up and increases their supply to the world market as a means of dropping the price. That seems to be classic supply and demand economics to me. IANAE.