Reply With Quote
HAHAHAHA
You basically said that doing all that was as good as drinking the groundwater from the refineries that you want built...
^^See it didn't take long for boutons to post the little propganda piece this
morning. Notice he didn't highlight: "But Dr. Christy, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, said the report also noted that computer simulations of the climate system, while good at replicating the globally averaged temperature changes, still strayed in projecting details, particularly in the tropics.
This implied that the models remained laden with uncertainties when used to study future trends, he said."
Guess they just couldn't get a good spin on those findings.
Or should we just say: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are all
doomed.
HAHAHAHA
You basically said that doing all that was as good as drinking the groundwater from the refineries that you want built...
Um, dozens of scientists get together and agree on something, and it is a "propaganda" piece?
What would it take to convince you that global climate change is really happening?
I guess I am on ignore.
Time to create new profiles to irritate Yoni, etc...
First, there may be a climate change, but man is damn sure
not causing it. We could not change anything if we wanted
to. Otherwise we could control hurricanes, tornado's, droughts,
so on and so forth.
Second, I now understand that this was a draft release, not
meant to be released until later....
And there are other "reputable" scientist who disagree
with those findings. They don't count?
There has been many climate changes in history, some
we may not even be aware of, many occurred before man
was even around. Nothing is static in this world. Just
as our puny lifetime is a zero in the whole of time.
How many things has some expert claimed with absolute
certainty that such was such only to be proven wrong at
a later date? How come we cant with any certainty fore-
cast weather three days from now, or even tomorrow in
many cases, but these "experts" can tell you with all the
certainty they can muster, with their co-harts that man
is causing all these problems. Hogwash, I have too many
years already on this earth to worry about these twerps
who in most cases want only two things. Money and
fame. And most have a socialist ideology. Somewhere
some of you folks are going to have start using what
God gave you, some common sense.
Just saw that you responded, Random Guy - I hadn't checked this thread in a while. I'll get back to you, just wanted to make sure you knew I'm not ignoring you.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4269858
Read that from the Economist. Then come here and explain to the forum who is spinning things.
That study lends a lot more creedence to what climate change scientists have been saying. Now that the observations are more in line with the models, it takes out a big portion of the arguement against climate change. I found it very interesting.
"Those data have thus been over-corrected, reducing the apparent temperature below the actual temperature."
"By comparing the raw data, the team was able to identify a trend: recorded night-time temperatures in the troposphere (night being the ultimate form of shade) have indeed risen."
"Correct for orbital decay and you see not cooling, but warming."
"compared 19 different computer models. ... the fact that all of them trend in the same direction reinforces the idea that it is the data which are spurious rather than the models' predictions."
Only right-wing ideologists and oilco-owned Repugs are spewing against warming, and for finding WMD.
It doesn't take much more than a moron to realize that drinking that water probably isn't kosher. You're still out on a limb to decide whether or not you're officially re ed. Guess what? I don't drink that crappy water that's treated at cities either. I'll take my unproven ground well over that scientifically safe, chemically treated crap any day. You can process sewage and slurp that up but i'd rather drink from a rocky mountain stream any day also.
Just checking though, weren't you the one ing about biofuels? Shouldn't you be ranting about Brazil and explain to everyone that its a mirage that there actually becoming a force in the world and now are evergy independent thanks to biofuels?
Its a worthless idea if it doesn't help 100 percent of those involved right? Whether it be biofuels, social programs, tax rebates or refineries. Face it, you fit the stereotype of the liberal who knocks any idea that doesn't help everyone and everything and forget about those that it harms. It would cap it off if you were old, bald, wore supspenders and spoke really loud and animated when you rant about this sort of thing.
Go back and reread the original post. This isn't global warming.
This is increasing acidity in the ocean on a massive scale. This acidity is dissolving things like coral reefs and the s s of the microscopic life that form the basis of the aquatic food chain.
This change is directly tied to CO2 emissions that we are pumping out in increasing amounts.
You may find a minority of scientists who poo-poo global warming and they will get a lot of play on right-wing anti-environmentalist propaganda,
but
This is not global warming. Read the first post again, please.
Biofuels will not be able to replace oil in the US. Brazil, yes. Mostly because they don't drive anywhere near the mileage that the US does. Biofuels based on sugar cane could replace some of our energy needs, but corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than can be extracted from it. I doubt we have the water resources to come anywhere even near the requirements to replace more than a fraction of our gasoline usage.
I am really against biodiesel as a total replacement for gasoline, because even this cleaner form of diesel is still 70 times more polluting in terms of particulate soot than gasoline. Biodeisel could/should replace diesel as it burns a lot cleaner than oil-based diesel does.
As for the persoan insults:
Knock yourself out. Your stereotypes/prejudices don't concern me. Stick to the topic at hand, and I will give you reasoned arguments supporte by data.
^^did anyone, but me, watch the propaganda piece on 60 mins last
night about E85. First time I have watched the show in years, but
wanted to see what John Daly had to say.
While it is true that corn-based ethanol is energy-negative, right now we're already producing the corn and just throwing it away to keep prices up artificially. AS long as we insist upon perpetuating our stupid corporate-welfare-to-ADM-and-ConAgra scheme, it makes sense at least to do something with that corn.Biofuels based on sugar cane could replace some of our energy needs, but corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than can be extracted from it.
I am always hesitant about using food products for fuel. Somewhere down
the line that food is going to be needed to feed people. Yes, I know right
now we have a surplus, but that was true about oil before WWII, we exported
oil. I still just wish that Congress would get off its duff and allow us to
go after the oil we have available. The Cubans and Mexico are now starting
to drill just miles off our coast, you know they are really going to be
environmentally friendly, now don't you. One person said they other day,
it would not be above the realm of possibility that they would do a little
slant drilling and get our oil.
It would not be good for them to get caught doing that. That tends to earn one a house call from the U.S. Navy.One person said they other day,
it would not be above the realm of possibility that they would do a little
slant drilling and get our oil.
And who is going to know. I don't know of a way to monitor that sort of
activity. Do you?
Our surveillance abilities in the Western Hemisphere are pretty good. Drilling rigs can't hide in caves. And since through public-domain GPS images I can see my brother-in-law smoking a cigarette on his front porch, I imagine the stuff DoD has can identify horizontal-drilling equipment.
Maybe, but I cant see positioning one of our surveillance things out there to
monitor their drilling activities. But you may be right.
I'll defer to you on whether or not someone can be a good accountant without understanding economics. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone can be a good anything without understand economics, but that is an entirely different topic. Whether an accountant is familiar with economics, however, is independent of whether economics and cost accounting are "directly related." Maybe cost accountants take cues from Economists, but the relationship isn't mutual.
Aside from the use of the word "economic" in the definition of accounting that you have provided, I don't see a lot of overlap."One of the goals of the field of microeconomics is to analyze mechanisms and market forces that establish relative prices amongst goods and services and allocate society's resources amongst their many alternative uses."--wikipedia
Cost accounting is a branch of accounting that, in deference to my my cost accounting textbook, :
"Accounting systems take economic events and transactions, such as sales and materials purchases, and process that data into information helpful to manager, sales representatives, production supervisors, and others. Processing any economic transaction means collecting, categorizing, summarizing, and analysing...
[cost accounting] measures, analyszes, and reports financial and nonfinacial information relating to the costs of acquiring or using resources in an organization.
Understanding the costs of producing something is only 1 small part in understanding the true economic cost of anything, but it appears that is where the accountant's job ends. Where accounting and economic perspectives diverge is the economists inclusion of opportunity costs. I've yet to see opportunity costs put on a financial statement. Maybe a cost accountant is able to consider these things, but I don't think that is necessarily a critical job function.One must understand the costs that go into a product to be able to understand the true economic cost of anything, and cost accounting is the intersection between accounting and economics. Both disciplines require an understanding of supply and demand, and I would go so far as to call cost accountants a highly specialized branch of economists.
I just did a Monster.com search for Cost Accountant, looked at about 6 postings, and no where did I see consideration to opportunity costs. It seems that most Cost Accountants (like most accountants) are focused on what I would call "accounting transactions" (crediting one account and debiting another) as opposed to "economic transactions".
There is a specific reason that we have terms like "economic profit" which is differentiated from "accounting profit", and it's not because they are the same thing.
I'm glad that accountants spend a good week studying bottlenecks. I don't really see your point though.We spent a good week studying bottlenecks and how to identify them (chapter 19 under "theory of constraints"), because they are so important to making good management decisions.
Well, that's essentially what you did.In determining the costs of producing gasoline, such as you described, a cost accountant would not say flatly that "x percent" of the cost of gasoline is due to the cost of oil. The cost of gasoline is a URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependant_variable]dependant variable[/URL], with the independant variable being the cost of oil, with a high degree of correlation. The lack of refining capacity would also be an independant variable to consider.
Either:The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies. I loved my cost accounting course, and understand exactly what drives the price of a gallon of gas. It is all in the financial reports, if you know where to look.
a) You are confusing correlation and causation
b) You believe that regression analysis is the end-all of economic understanding
c) You've actually run the regression, tested for multicollinearity, then tested against fundemental economic theory and your original statement was correct - because that is what an economist would have done before making such a statement. However, since you've arrived at a fundementally and technically wrong conclusion, I've ruled this possibility out although you may have just screwed up in your econometric analysis.
Please do tell, however, what is in these financial reports that shows exactly what drives the price of gasoline?
An economist acting in the role of an economist probably wouldn't tell you how much the price of crude oil is driving the price of gasoline since the price of crude oil is driven in part by the cost of gasoline. That's quite the circular reference. But I digress.Both do drive the cost of gasoline to a certain degree. A cost accountant could tell you the same thing that an economist would, namely how much each does contribute to each unit of price. In this they are very much the same.
Maybe you are right, Cost Accountants are just highly specialized Economists. I've never taken a cost accounting course, but I know there is a reason we don't hire Cost Accountants to be Economists and we don't really seek the advice of them either. Maybe we are just snobby that way.
However, I think your initial statement of:
is evidence enough that Cost Accountants have a very different perspective of things than Economists.The primary driver in the cost of gasoline is not refineries. It is the cost of oil. Don't take my word for it, ask the cost accountants that work for the big oil companies.
Last edited by scott; 05-08-2006 at 07:00 PM.
That is a good point. If we have excess at our disposal, let's make use of it.
Do some more studying, it is there.
Cost accounting is very concerned with opportunity costs, both in terms of capital and resource usage, because if you don't have a grasp on these costs, you don't have a complete picture.Understanding the costs of producing something is only 1 small part in understanding the true economic cost of anything, but it appears that is where the accountant's job ends. Where accounting and economic perspectives diverge is the economists inclusion of opportunity costs. I've yet to see opportunity costs put on a financial statement. Maybe a cost accountant is able to consider these things, but I don't think that is necessarily a critical job function.
Economists in general are indeed concerned with wider implications of opportunity costs in terms of society as a whole, and this is why I like to study economics as I like to see the "whole" picture in any thing I chose to learn about.
So six job decriptions on Monster.com are an all-inclusive definition of an entire field of study, and/or a better description of cost accounting than a 800+ page textbook on the subject?I just did a Monster.com search for Cost Accountant, looked at about 6 postings, and no where did I see consideration to opportunity costs. It seems that most Cost Accountants (like most accountants) are focused on what I would call "accounting transactions" (crediting one account and debiting another) as opposed to "economic transactions".
An understanding of debits and credits is essential to accounting as well. Did any of those job descriptions ask for someone who understands debits and credits? Could it possibly be that both understanding opportunity costs and debits and credits is so basic to cost accounting that it is simply assumed when posting for jobs in that field that the person should know something of both?
Please explain how, I am honestly puzzled at what you are getting at here.There is a specific reason that we have terms like "economic profit" which is differentiated from "accounting profit", and it's not because they are the same thing.
...and I suppose you have "run the regression" etc in advancing your hypothesis? I would like to see such an analysis that you have done yourself in making the statement that refinery capacity is the primary driver in the cost of gasoline.Either:
a) You are confusing correlation and causation
b) You believe that regression analysis is the end-all of economic understanding
c) You've actually run the regression, tested for multicollinearity, then tested against fundemental economic theory and your original statement was correct - because that is what an economist would have done before making such a statement. However, since you've arrived at a fundementally and technically wrong conclusion, I've ruled this possibility out although you may have just screwed up in your econometric analysis.
Please do tell, however, what is in these financial reports that shows exactly what drives the price of gasoline?
As to what in those financial reports that shows what drives the price of gasoline, that is a good question. As an accountant, I know what data gets incorporated into financial statements, but it is not there in an easy-to-get at formula.
As it is, I will go ahead and plow through the financials, because it interests me. I will get back to you in a couple of weeks.
It is not quite a circular reference, but more accurately a feedback loop. But I digress.An economist acting in the role of an economist probably wouldn't tell you how much the price of crude oil is driving the price of gasoline since the price of crude oil is driven in part by the cost of gasoline. That's quite the circular reference. But I digress.
Snobby? You don't say...Maybe you are right, Cost Accountants are just highly specialized Economists. I've never taken a cost accounting course, but I know there is a reason we don't hire Cost Accountants to be Economists and we don't really seek the advice of them either. Maybe we are just snobby that way.
Were you either, I *might* take your word for it. I don't really know if you are an economist or not, but you certainly aren't an accountant, so being able to speak to cost accounting is not something that I will defer to you in terms of expertise.However, I think your initial statement of:
[quote about cost drivers here, see earlier posts--RG]
is evidence enough that Cost Accountants have a very different perspective of things than Economists.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to state that the primary constriction of the supply of gasoline is not the supply of refining capacity, it is the supply of oil. We are talking about a price point after all, and this is a point that happens to be dependent on where ever the intersection of supply and demand curves is. If that is the bee in yer bonnet, pardon the Steve Martin quote, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I find this whole ad hominem rather wierd, but will play along, because it seems an intersting bit to play with.
I will go ahead and and start pulling data from Exxon's annual statement. It is a big honker and will take a bit to sift through.
I will also pull up some industry analysis. I even know an accountant with BP, and she might have a good idea where to start.
Don't expect instant results, as my spare time is limited by my income-earning activities.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-09-2006 at 08:08 PM.
Damn, Exxon's annual statement is a 20MB monster. At first glance it seems to have plenty of data on refining capacity and throughput.
That should be enough to marry it to gasoline price data and run a regression analysis. Heh, it would do my statistics professor proud.
I suppose it would also be a good idea to comb through a few other large oil companies financial reports and get a better handle on the data.
I love this stuff.
Here's an interesting bit:
"by investing primarily in low-cost debottleneck steps, we have effectively added a new industry-average sized refinery to our portfolio every three years and an average conversion unit each year..."
Wonder if they hired an economist to find the bottlenecks?
I was just using the definition you provided:
"Accounting systems take economic events and transactions, such as sales and materials purchases, and process that data into information helpful to manager, sales representatives, production supervisors, and others. Processing any economic transaction means collecting, categorizing, summarizing, and analysing... [cost accounting] measures, analyszes, and reports financial and nonfinacial information relating to the costs of acquiring or using resources in an organization."
Economics is much more beyond the cost of production. To say Accounting and Economics are similar is like saying Physics and Operating a Calculator are similar because they both rely on mathematics.
Again, I'm pleased you have taken an interest in economics - I think more people should. But just because a dentist likes to gaze at the stars, it doesn't necessarily make him an astronomer.Cost accounting is very concerned with opportunity costs, both in terms of capital and resource usage, because if you don't have a grasp on these costs, you don't have a complete picture.
Economists in general are indeed concerned with wider implications of opportunity costs in terms of society as a whole, and this is why I like to study economics as I like to see the "whole" picture in any thing I chose to learn about.
I randomly looked at 6 Cost Accountant jobs - they all looked pretty similar. Understanding opportunity costs and them being a critical function of a job are two different things. Are you telling me that someone's job as a Cost Accountant is to determine all the alternative uses of that resource to determine whether or not it is being put to optimal use? That isn't something that requires the use of an economist, but that is economics.So six job decriptions on Monster.com are an all-inclusive definition of an entire field of study, and/or a better description of cost accounting than a 800+ page textbook on the subject?
An understanding of debits and credits is essential to accounting as well. Did any of those job descriptions ask for someone who understands debits and credits? Could it possibly be that both understanding opportunity costs and debits and credits is so basic to cost accounting that it is simply assumed when posting for jobs in that field that the person should know something of both?
My hypothesis is supported by pretty basic logic and a handful of facts. A regression isn't necessary anymore than it is to determine that the key driver of water boiling is the application of heat to it....and I suppose you have "run the regression" etc in advancing your hypothesis? I would like to see such an analysis that you have done yourself in making the statement that refinery capacity is the primary driver in the cost of gasoline.
What are these things that get incorporated? I'm not asking you to go out of your way to do research, I'm asking you to explain your process. If you want to go through the numbers, thats your thing - but I'm curious as to the process that led you to the conclusion that you, and apparently "the cost accountants at major oil companies" have come to that the cost of oil is the primary driver of higher gasoline prices and not refineries. Also note that you didn't say refining capacity. You said refineries. I also never said refining capacity. I said refineries.As to what in those financial reports that shows what drives the price of gasoline, that is a good question. As an accountant, I know what data gets incorporated into financial statements, but it is not there in an easy-to-get at formula.
As it is, I will go ahead and plow through the financials, because it interests me. I will get back to you in a couple of weeks.
Well I don't really know if you are an accountant, so neener-neener.Were you either, I *might* take your word for it. I don't really know if you are an economist or not, but you certainly aren't an accountant, so being able to speak to cost accounting is not something that I will defer to you in terms of expertise.
Actually, that wouldn't be more accurate - which is the entire point. Oil supply is not constraint. The ability to turn oil into something people demand, is. (See forthcoming discussion related to what is driving gasoline and distillate prices right now).Perhaps it would have been more accurate to state that the primary constriction of the supply of gasoline is not the supply of refining capacity, it is the supply of oil.
It is, and you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that the supply of oil, or rather the relative lack thereof, is what is driving prices. But as you know, there is another side to the equation.We are talking about a price point after all, and this is a point that happens to be dependent on where ever the intersection of supply and demand curves is.
Again, I don't know what it is you can find... just what it is you are looking for.I will go ahead and and start pulling data from Exxon's annual statement. It is a big honker and will take a bit to sift through.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
