March 31, 2012
Obama Raises The Price Of Oil
Obama Finds Oil in Markets Is Sufficient to Sideline Iran
After careful analysis of oil prices and months of negotiations, President Obama on Friday determined that there was sufficient oil in world markets to allow countries to significantly reduce their Iranian imports, clearing the way for Washington to impose severe new sanctions intended to slash Iran’s oil revenue and press Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
The White House announcement comes after months of back-channel talks to prepare the global energy market to cut Iran out — but without raising the price of oil, which would benefit Iran and harm the economies of the United States and Europe.
Obama could have waivered the sanctions by pointing out that they are likely to increase oil prices. As the piece describes it the administration says it believes that oil prices will not increase when it implements the sanctions. It is obvious that there are three big flaws with this thinking.
First it depends on an increase in Saudi Arabia's oil production. If such an increase is possible and sustainable at all it would take away the only world wide reserve production capacity. Any additional disruption in any oil supply from elsewhere -which eventually will happen- will therefore lead to high price spikes. The idea is to use the limited stored strategic petroleum reserves to control price spikes. Thus this whole idea only works with a limited time horizon. It is not sustainable.
The second flaw of the thinking that oil prices will not increase is that it does not anticipate any Iranian countermeasure. What happens if a pipeline in south Iraq blows up? What if some sabotage in the Saudi oilfields -most of them are in its restive Shia populated areas- takes away some of their capacity? What if Iran simply stops selling a large chunk of its oil?
The third flaw is the idea that oil prices solely depend on available supply and demand. Instead they also depend on expectations. As this strategy to press Iran and to keep oil prices from increasing is not sustainable what is the endgame to this "squeezing" of Iran?
For strategic and domestic policy reasons Iran can and will not cry uncle and give up its civilian nuclear program. Neither can the Obama administration, in an election year, make the necessary comprises for a negotiated resolution of this manufactured conflict. It seems then that there is no peaceful endgame possible and the only way to solve the issue will be a long war.
Oil markets, like all other markets, base their price finding also on expectations of future supply and demand conditions. As it is obvious that the Obama strategy will increase risks and leaves war in the Gulf as the only resolution of the crisis oil prices will increase further from their already high level.
As this seems obvious why is the Obama administration not seeing it? What is the larger plan behind this feigned naivety that "squeezing" Iran will not increase the price of oil?
Posted by b on March 31, 2012 at 06:02 AM | Permalink
So, we know that Iran will be selling it's oil for a discount. What's to say that we aren't picking up some of that discounted oil? The waivers have been issued to Japan, Korea and a few other friends to allow them to circumvent the Iran oil blockade. But, when there's cheap oil available on the spot market, what's to say... It's not like oil has a mattress tag on it with country of origin.
Posted by: scottindallas | Mar 31, 2012 7:46:21 AM | 1
Welcome back b! Your work is greatly appreciated and you do it with such generosity and grace - most important - glad that you are getting back your health.
Posted by: thirsty | Mar 31, 2012 7:47:55 AM | 2
What is the larger plan behind this feigned naivety that "squeezing" Iran will not increase the price of oil?
The larger plan is the same as it's been for the last 10 years - to deflect attention from theft, slaughter and ethnic cleansing in Jewish Occupied Palestine.
No-one's going to attack Iran. The whole idea is a preposterous Jewish wet dream. It's surrounded by a cornucopia of bona-fide military targets including ~30 US bases and numerous oil assets. Oh, and the Shitty Little Country.
And the above are just the obvious ones.
In the past few days I've lost count of the number of times an Iran news item is followed by a story about something dastardly, or dopey, the Jews have done to the Pals, or themselves.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 31, 2012 8:15:19 AM | 3
@3 - I don't think that's the plan. That doesn't come close to describing the surface contradictions. I say surface contradictions because with full information, something we obviously don't have, maybe they're not contradictions at all.
Posted by: Sultanist | Mar 31, 2012 8:29:24 AM | 4
By necessity, the talks over Irans nuclear program will have to be productive.
Everyone wants this to be resolved gracefully, because this is a loose - loose situation for all. The Israeli IAEA claim Iran has a military nuke program depended on Syria falling. As this did not happen, Israel, IEAE and USA have to concede, that is let the talks with Iran be resolving, and resulting in lifting of some sanctions. Right now Iran has the power to disrupt and fail the European economy, with dramatic cascading effects. By simply stopping oildelivery to Greece, they could do some serious damage to world economy.
So, as Syra will retain its government, and the Iran war has to be cancelled, Obama has to make it look as if the sanctions are working, and let it look as if Iran makes concessions in its nuclear programme, without Iran being humiliated, giving up its nuclear programme or stopping uranium centrifuges.
The sanctions will never be effectuated, because nobody can afford to. Saudi-Arabia doesn't have the spare capacity to compensate, they are mostly pumping sludge, and have a negative development in their production. The big looser in all this i Israel, and Benjamin Netanjahu, and frankly most Israelis is happy about is, and want Bibi replaced, because he has become mentally unstable and no longer fit to govern Israel.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 31, 2012 8:33:17 AM | 5
I think if Iran's leaders pledged fealty to the system that insures the dollars place in the global currency exchange, all the talk of invading Iran would evaporate like an early morning mist.
Posted by: ben | Mar 31, 2012 9:03:39 AM | 6
@Hoarsewhisperer: Please call it Zionist-occupied Palestine. There were and still are lots of Jews there and abroad who were opposed to a Jewish state, and there were and are lots of Christians who are more Zionist than Stern ever was.
Posted by: m_s | Mar 31, 2012 9:19:47 AM | 7
The effect of this move, an order to the world to obey the United States and stop buying Iranian oil, is to make it plain that any countries likely to disagree in future with US foreign policy must develop alternatives to New York, and its subsidiaries such as London as commercial and financial centres, and the dollar as a reserve currency.
It will puzzle future historians that so much of the world was ready to suspend disbelief and go along with the obvious falsehood that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. We all understand that it isn't. The US and Israel are certain that it isn't. And yet every nerwspaper in the "western world", every TV station and every political party pretends that the naked Emperor is gorgeously attired and queue up to kiss the hem of his non existent robe.
Posted by: bevin | Mar 31, 2012 9:37:42 AM | 8
bevin @ 8
It's a non sequitur, like the traditional Cuba embargo.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 31, 2012 10:05:03 AM | 9
It hardly matters. I'm constantly confounded by the statement 'not all of support it'. WTF?
You mean, there wasn't a diversity of views in Iraq or Libya or Indonesia or Thailand, USA, UK or any one of the fucking countries out there about their wars and actions?
If your ethnic group has been hijacked by rogue elements, go figure out a way to stop them before someone else does something drastic.
And notice that in spite of people not liking Saddam, Ghadafi or any of the African dictators, the entire population suffered in the media and in the actual bombing by US and NATO countries?
That's how the real world works, unfairly, unjustly and with more than a bit of Genghis khan's relish.
Shit gets served and what goes around comes around.
Posted by: shanks | Mar 31, 2012 10:42:08 AM | 10
been thinking about this a bit, I am wondering if this is not just a ploy by the oil companies to increase their profits. a long time ago someone told me that the arab oil embargo that happened in the 70's was planned out by the major oil companies and implemented by henry kissinger so that they (the oil companies) would have an excuse to raise prices on gasoline which were around 25 cents a gallon then. sure enough the price shot up to over a dollar a gallon and that would never had been possible without having those damn arabs to take the blame.
so, now we have those damn persians to blame for the price of gasoline going from around 3 dollars a gallon to 5 or so.
what am I getting wrong?
Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 31, 2012 10:52:49 AM | 11
@shanks and Hoarsewhisper
I think it's essential to distinguish between Zionists and Jews
if you want to "short-cut" references to what Israel does, then you can say "Israel-occupied Palestine", just as you would say that the Us invaded Iraq, etc; you wouldn't say that "Christians" invaded Iraq, although there are many connections between religion and politics among the neocons (and not only), maybe more than between Judaism and Israel
besides, it's not clear what the term "Jew" refers to: practicioner of a religion, or member of an ethnic group? Nazis and Zionists would have us believe the latter, but this myth has been debunked by a Tel Aviv university historian, Shlomo Sand, in his "The invention of the Jewish people"
Posted by: claudio | Mar 31, 2012 11:08:36 AM | 12
"What is the larger plan?"
I think it's another instance in which the Us painted itself in a corner, in the rethoric-driven policies of our era, and where rethorics are fueled in great part (but not only) by powerful lobbies and controlled by MSM
Obama hopes the price of oil won't rise, just as Bush hoped Iraq would become a model democracy friendly to Israel
Posted by: claudio | Mar 31, 2012 11:16:11 AM | 13
's all the rage, right along with faith-based 'science'
Posted by: Hu Bris | Mar 31, 2012 11:32:15 AM | 14
Somewhat off topic, but...
We have an old (built in '52) cinder block house, in a very very nice neighborhood in Albuquerque, near the University. About 1800 sq. ft, just myself and wife now.
Done major rework on this house in last 2 years... entirely new roof rafters (they were collapsing), stripped/replaced all interior walls of plaster/sheetrock, and rewired while walls exposed. Moved a few walls, mostly for bigger & more open kitchen (we like to cook & feed the masses).
We're in final stages of installing complete solar. Will power the whole house, plus... putting in extra capacity (extra 2 panels) in order to generate enough sufficient electricity to for a 220v connection, to charge planned purchase of 100% electric car.
I did most of the work on our house myself.
Going to electric central heater... not as efficient as gas, but.. hey, free electricity from the sky. Our water will be heated by solar as well... pretty much a standard system now.
Total cost before tax deductions: $12,800 (would be considerably more if contractor had done the work). With state/fed deductions, comes down to about $6800. Given our avg. monthly energy usage, we'll break even on this in less then 6 years.
And now is a great time to do this: cost of all the equipment to do this well, has dropped near 200% in last 24 mos. Panels, probably, have bottomed on price (or close to it) for a while.
In Albuquerque, seeing more and more of these going in (mostly on older homes), but still only a very small per-centage of the totality of homes here. The new ones, for some time... aren't even equipped w/attic fans (big cooling savings here in hi desert)... just very little "green" built into new ones.
This just seems like such a no brainer, common sense thing for us, the US... and the world. BO's SOE, Dr. Chu... has spoken much on pressing for re-newables, but BO has repeatedly pushed Chu's advice aside. Not just BO, however... near entire US political structure seems owned by fossil industries, and media marches in lockstep.
I've been persuaded of the Climate Change reality for some time. US Fed Climatologists have made predictions for our little corner here, for well over 5 years. Everything they've said, already has come to pass:
- higher humidity (gone from summer +/- 10% >> over 40%, in just 5 years)
- more wind: we have always had windy spring times. Last 2 years, successive records for # days, and velocity (several "events" over 80 mph last year... whole roofs blew off all around the county.)
- diminished rain fall. This was driest year on record, here (Texas, even worse).
Anyway, just a little (IMO) very common sense "green report" from our little, out of the way, corner of the Blue Planet.
"Things should be kept as simple as possible, but not
Posted by: jdmckay | Mar 31, 2012 11:34:57 AM | 15
Forgot one thing... (@15), we'll be getting about $100 p/mo back from local utility company.
Posted by: jdmckay | Mar 31, 2012 11:36:49 AM | 16
Claudio @ 12
I really think you don't get it at all. Out 'there' they think it's Xian Crusaders versus muslims. That means, it matters squat what you and I argue about, logically, factually etc. The 'meme' is that; all the ugliness from the jews are out for our blood, the Xians for defiling our women, they're here to convert us/kill us, they can see through clothes in their raybans...it's out.
Some of it are fantastic propaganda by Al-queda chaps, some are internalised beliefs, so with a semi literate population out there, it's a good tinderbox.
My Larger point is, when the shit starts flying, no one cares whether you're a pacifist jew or Ghandi, you still get blown up. I think b wrote an article where, to get 1 guy, if you limit yourself to killing 30 people with the bomb to get that 1 guy, it's all OK.
That logic plays both ways.
BTW, do the Zionists/jews carry some distinguishing marks on them that one can identify who is who? You don't have to answer the Q.
Posted by: shanks | Mar 31, 2012 12:17:47 PM | 17
I wonder if they are counting on a serious recession in China? That seems possible and it may depress oil prices, though I doubt it will be much bellow 80$ per barrel and probably for not that long.
Iran may be better off giving there older oil fields a rest and unilaterally cutting its exports in half. I don't know if they can survive that economically, but I think Iran has 1-2 hundred billion in currency reserves that they can live on for a while until they find buyers willing to pay market price for their oil.
Also, protests are on going in eastern KSA and occasionally flair up in the rest of the country. At the moment, I don't think its a serious threat to the Saudi government. But until recently, protests were unheard of and these things could get out of hand in a hurry.
And since KSA depends on high oil prices to pay off their people, it may be that a serious drop in oil prices might just end up hurting the Saudis much more than the Iranians.
KSA is the entire lynch pin to US domination in the middle east. If it falls, the US will be in a world of hurt.
Posted by: Lysander | Mar 31, 2012 12:39:57 PM | 18
@17 Even though people are killed indiscriminately once 'the shit starts flying', some groups tend to suffer disproportionately. And it's important to be accurate about who/what is causing the killing.
Posted by: Watson | Mar 31, 2012 1:21:35 PM | 19
cheaper oil, that's the ticket...
we can cut the price if we streamline the delivery system... for instance, if we eliminate that trip round africa, eliminate the trip around the arabian peninsula and the trip through the suez (suez being unable to take fully-loaded VLCCs because of draft problems, including "air draft" problems caused by a low bridge across the canal).
security of delivery has a bearing on the price... how much extra does oil cost because of israel's continual threats to start more wars in the oil patch, a wars that will cripple oil delivery and maybe even the production facilities?
the obvious solution, due to all the above, is to build pipelines to the mediterranean, which means we have to do regime changes in syria and lebanon, which should be easy enough to accomplish if we find the right leadership... "right" leadership being defined as the same kind of leadership we've attempted to install in so many other places, leadership that can be seduced by visions of enormous pipeline transit revenues, leadership that wont hesitate to kill its own citizens to protect the revenue stream going to the tame leaders.
all these selling points probably flew pretty well with european leaders who were aware of impending peak oil... it's no coincidence that tony blair's gas and oil production peaked just before he became the most articulate spokeman for the neocons' PNAC project.
too bad yossi maiman's egypt/israel pipeline was blown up again... this is the thirteenth time the pipeline's been blown.
too bad the whole israeli/israeli american/neocon dream is so cockeyed, no wonder anyone with any sense has turned to their fallback position, looting.
here's that map again... i'm going to start including the URL in the "post a comment" URL field, so you should be able to click on my handle and get the map.
if you want, save that map and post it wherever you want to post it.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 31, 2012 1:35:55 PM | 20
if anyone finds blatant errors in the map, or if i've overlooked something important, please tell me... i'll keep the map updated for as long as i can.
i turned 69 years old today, and i'm gonna put the new tube on my bike and go to town and get myself a few birthday presents... two packages of smoked salmon and 24 cans of beer...
i havent been drinking for a month or so, so the beer's probably gonna hit me hard...
maybe, after a few beers, if you apply the right pressure, i'll disgrace myself.
oughta be worth a try. :)
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 31, 2012 2:09:51 PM | 22
The most likely explanation is that the US elite wants to up the price of oil as much as possible. Oil at $120/bbl will make it quite profitable to exploit all that dirty tar sand and convert it to gasoline. Obama can't be stupid enough to believe what he says about oil and Iran.
Posted by: JohnE | Mar 31, 2012 2:34:40 PM | 23
good to hear. There can never be too much good news, bad news we have anyway.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Mar 31, 2012 2:36:24 PM | 24
I dunno. Obviously if world availability of oil goes down, or there is expectation of decline, then the oil price will go up. But what happens if the Iranians succeed in selling their oil in the usual quantities? I wouldn't be at all surprised if that were what happened. People need hydrocarbons, and they will circumvent sanctions, especially if KSA doesn't really increase production (probable). In that case nothing will happen to the oil price.
It all reminds me of my Iranian ex-student who arrived in Paris last year with thousands of euros sewn into his coat, for his wife to finish her studies. If formal methods of payment are blocked, then informal ones are used.
Posted by: alexno | Mar 31, 2012 2:54:16 PM | 25
canadian oil from the tar sands is selling at a $30 discount to other oil, $75 a barrel... the most widely quoted benchmark price in the US, west texas intermediate (WTI @ $103 per barrel), is, as of this posting, trading at at $21 discount to global oil... brent now at $123.80, alaska at 120, lousiana sweet at 125.
the fact that the most widely quoted price is $20 lower than global oil, even american oil, leads me to believe that the quoting mechanism is part of the peak oil denial apparatus.
that canadian oil is landlocked, and so is unavailable on the global market... so the refiners in the US midwest are getting cheap oil and selling the refined products at "regular" prices, making a killing in the process... the canadians and US consumers in the midwest are getting screwed.
the pipeline from cushing to louisiana would put that oil on the global market, and the refiners in the midwest would take it in the shorts.
there's already refining overcapacity, especially for light sweet crude, and most refiners are losing money, which is why the big companies are selling off or closing refineries.
if it turns out that oil production has peaked, the refinery overcapacity will only get worse as time wears on.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 31, 2012 2:58:48 PM | 26
@Sultanist no. 4
Maybe there is nothing hidden, no conspiracy, no secret evidence. Perhaps our "leaders" are actually not particularly smart or inquisitive and actually believe their rhetoric.
Just a thought, you never know.
Posted by: assiz | Mar 31, 2012 3:45:07 PM | 28
The main effects of sanctions are as usual on the people of Iran, not on the governing class.
I was going to say 'on the "ordinary" people of Iran', but that is not right. We don't know much about what ordinary people think. The only thing that we know is that they voted for Ahmedinejad. Nothing was done for them under the Shah. I well remember the shocking primitivity of Iranian villages at that time - no electricity, no macadamised road access - in spite of the oil wealth. Their situation apparently improved under the religious regime, because they voted for Ahmedinejad. He is best known for having built or added to many religious sanctuaries - my ex-student catalogued them on the Caspian coast. I presume that other aspects of life were also improved.
There is a particularly wide divide in Iran between the people and the elite. It goes back to the Sasanian Shahs (226-651 AD), when the elite paid no taxes, and the relics still remain. The elite departed with the Shah, leaving a rump, the middle class, and the poor. That is what I see among my Iranian students: one is a descendant of the Qajar shahs of the 19th century, the other two are middle class and are suffering.
No word about the poor. If they are forced to go back to the experience of the 70s, then perhaps nothing new, but rather not to like a reduction in life-style. The regime is not going to be blamed, but rather the US. That is, even without an Israeli attack, the regime will not be weakened.
One should not pay attention to what 'little Tehran' in Los Angeles says. The expatriates have nothing to say which speaks of other than their own elite. What is missing is the voice of the poor, who voted for Ahmedinejad.
Posted by: alexno | Mar 31, 2012 4:02:51 PM | 29
Considering that there is very little actual patriotism, or concern for the welfare of the citizenry, exhibited by these pieces of shit in Washington DC, I think the actual causitive factor of high energy prices is over-complicated in the debate.
Its called greed, folks, mixed in with political opportunism. What, its a fuckin' coincidence that fuel prices are running sky high during this election cycle? Now, just who the hell do you think the energy companies would like to see in power, the right, or the left?
The deep oil found in North Dakota isn't being discussed in these debates, is it? Well placed oilmen I have talked to in Central Cal claim this find eclipses the Saudi deposits. Its HUGE. Its very deep, but, supposedly, the technology to tap it is right around the corner. One guy told me that within six months technology will be online that can reach the deep deposits.
So, why not sound the media klaxons on this huge find? Could it be that such announcements would expose the pure SHIT they feed us about the causitive factors of high fuel prices? Could it be that DESPITE this huge find, these obnoxious pricks in Congress want to continue to prattle on with partisan horseshit that has the sole purpose of channeling $$$$$$$ into the coffers of GLOBAL oil entities?
Its about greed. These scumbags in DC could care less what you pay at the pump. High prices are good for the bully pulpit, instrumental in dividing the people, while both sides of the aisle give it to us in the ass.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Mar 31, 2012 8:04:52 PM | 30
m_s @ 7.
@Hoarsewhisperer: Please call it Zionist-occupied Palestine. There were and still are lots of Jews there and abroad who were opposed to a Jewish state, and there were and are lots of Christians who are more Zionist than Stern ever was.
Sorry, no can do - at least until the Jews themselves stop calling it The Jewish State and start calling it the Zionist state.
I suggest you brush up on your Atzmon - the only consistently unequivocal anti-Zionist I'm aware of.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 31, 2012 9:03:40 PM | 31
m_s, we both know that the Jews call Jewish Occupied Palestine The Jewish State because this facilitates hiding their racism, theft, murder and genocidal anti-assimilation policies behind the bathos of their favourite "holocaust."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 31, 2012 9:20:45 PM | 32
The zionists of Israel might ethnically or genetically be Jews, but they do not follow the Jewish religion. The jewish religion forbids the Jews from establishing a national state, they are condemned by God to live in exile. Religious Jews cannot be zionists, the idea of Israel has little to do with religion and everything to do with racial purity.
Posted by: Alexander | Mar 31, 2012 9:21:07 PM | 33
Please call it Zionist-occupied Palestine
Nah! Not nearly as good as "Shitty Little Country"
Posted by: DM | Mar 31, 2012 9:30:40 PM | 34
m_s, I don't know how many more than 0 anti-Zionist Jews there are in Jewish Occupied Palestine. But there are clearly not enough to stop Zionist Jews from stealing Palestinian land and kicking Palestinians out of their homes so that Jews can claim "legal" ownwership under the (racist) Jewish Laws which apply in Jewish Occupied Palestine, enforced by heavily armed Jews against disarmed Palestinians.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 31, 2012 9:45:52 PM | 35
Glad to see B back!
Posted by: Sophia | Mar 31, 2012 10:32:41 PM | 36
the "original sin" is this situation is the founding of israel, and not so much the "founding", but the way it was founded.
it remains to be seen if jews are being manipulated to give us a pretext to grab oil... that may have been the original intent of people --including the big goy shakers and movers-- who supported the zionists as they founded israel.
if that's how it happened, those big shakers and movers have apparently created a frankenstein monster, unless the israeli leadership is in on the gag.
is that possible?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Mar 31, 2012 11:49:22 PM | 37
@ claudio | Mar 31, 2012 11:08:36 AM | 12
I think it's essential to distinguish between Zionists and Jews
Essential for whom?
If Jews choose to leave the differences between Jews, Jewish Zionists, and non-Jewish Zionists obscured, then that is their problem. No-one is preventing them from clarifying these rubbery labels.
While the viciously racist social-engineering experiment known as "Israel" continues to despoil the planet it's up to Jews, who care about the confusion, to decide who is, and who is not, a Jew, a Zionist Jew, an anti-Zionist Jew, or a non-Jewish Zionist - and tell the rest of us.
It won't happen.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 1, 2012 12:36:43 AM | 38
smoky motel room in a suburb of washington dc, 1940...
the US rep says, "basically, it's a change of command ceremony, from the brits to us."
ben gurion says, "we'd really being hanging our asses out, but it sounds like fun."
US rep says, "well, you're gonna have to wipe that grin off your face, because it's gonna be based on a tragedy... staged, but you got to behave as if it's real."
ben gurion quits grinning, and thinks, the bomb, we'll get the bomb, and these asshat americans can go fuck themselves...
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 12:46:11 AM | 39
Apologies for my spelling of 'non-Jewish Zionists' aka a large proportion of leaders and hi-profile politicians in the West. I spelt it that way in the interests of clarity.
The correct spelling is $$$-$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 1, 2012 1:11:51 AM | 40
well, i got to say everything here is perfect... lots of beer left, the wind is roaring, the harleys are revving up down the street, and i can barely hear myself think,
that's a relief.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 1:17:42 AM | 41
another "for instance"...
...that bus driver who thought everything was "that nigger's" fault...
he trotted out all the usual arguments about peak oil, including the "capped wells" argument...
he seemed weirdly unconvinced by his own arguments, and offered no resistance when i countered them.
you got to wonder if there's some unconscious knowledge surfacing in him.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:01:26 AM | 43
via Xymphora - accompanied by the observation "Just another symptom of Wars For The Jews."
(I agree with Joseph Stiglitz that the fake war in Iraq, for Big Oil and Israel, cost US Taxpayers $2Trillion+)
Fortunately, goofing off in their luxury yachts and bordellos, while waiting for the bullshit-believing, lacklustre Pentagoons to do their "persuading" for them, seems to have cost Big Oil a lot more than it would have cost to pursue their market ambitions via free market mechanisms - such as 'competition'.
PetroChina overtakes Exxon as biggest oil producer
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 1, 2012 2:13:19 AM | 44
there was an argument that big oil, in general, didnt want war, because it would interfere with normal trade.
but then you got exxon supporting the AEI... we got to assume that there are factions in the oil biz, just like everywhere else, and that exxon, once its nuke power ambitions were no longer possible. joined up with the israeli americans in their oil acquisition project.
so exxon makes record profits.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:24:14 AM | 45
the only conclusion we can come to is that 9/11 changed everything.
you got to wonder where the original theory came from... doc aumann?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:34:38 AM | 46
it just looks to me like most of the world has got the basic framework figured out, and they no longer are much concerned about the details.
too goddamned bad that the basic framework make hitler look like a piker.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:40:59 AM | 47
Carrying on from where b left off...
The fourth reason is that nobody responsible for securing short and long-term oil supplies for their home market asks Barry Obama to help with forecasting. Nor are they ever likely to.
So, even if it's not obvious who Barry wasn't talking to, it's pretty obvious who he was talking to: i.e. the (keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em bullshit) 99% (mushrooms).
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 1, 2012 2:42:28 AM | 48
you are violating the basic starling rule: keep it simple... i admit i'm drunk, but on the other hand, your argument makes me wonder if you're drunk, too.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:49:45 AM | 49
the worst of it all (uf we believe in the starling principle) might be that billions of people are starting to understand israel...
...which is not hard to understand at all.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:54:00 AM | 50
too goddamned bad that the basic framework of the operation makes hitler look like a piker.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 3:11:46 AM | 51
the wind has died, the bikers have ridden off into whatever they've ridden into, and i saw the first plane hit the tower.
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 3:15:58 AM | 52
@ #42"he trotted out all the usual arguments about peak oil, including the "capped wells" argument...
he seemed weirdly unconvinced by his own arguments, and offered no resistance when i countered them."
It's hilarious how your completely anecdotal story about some bus driver morphs into something that wanders all over the same tired old cliched ground you yourself travel here in the comment section though, ain't it?
Amazing coincidene that - not only is your ficiticious bus driver a racist, according to you, but he's also a Peak Oil denier!!! (shock horror)
What next I wonder? will your anecdotal/ficticious Bus Driver also turn out to be an AGW-denier, with a Nazi memoribilia fetish?
One might actually begin suspect you were just making this shit up as you go along
Tune in soon for his next installment in the "Amazing Adventures of a suppossedly-Sextegenarian Bullshit artiste"™
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 6:25:00 AM | 53
oh wait - this is some elaborate joke, right?
It being 1st April and all -
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 6:25:43 AM | 54
claudio wrote: I think it's another instance in which the Us painted itself in a corner, in the rethoric-driven policies of our era, and where rethorics are fueled in great part (but not only) by powerful lobbies and controlled by MSM
Yes...Obama is just trying to effect a compromise between several accepted positions and suppositions, all, in various ways, false, nonsensical or veiled...
Iran is trying to build the bomb > Iran must be sanctioned > Curbing oil trade is a sanction on Iran ‘only’ > The price of oil will rise or not, whatever, there is plenty of it > Sanctions will ‘work’...
Meanwhile, Iran buys US wheat, pays for it in Euros thru a Turkish bank.
India (I read) pays for Iranian oil thru Gazprom bank (Russia) and with barter.
However, I should think that sanctions are affecting Iran - ordinary ppl of course. With spanners in the money pipeline works, and a currency that is depreciating, foreign trading partners will want to be paid before delivery, any payments made will have a risk premium attached, allowed goods (e.g. life-saving pharma) will be more expensive, and just the general uncertainty + mind warping complications will lead to businesses folding. The sanctions will (do?) affect oil and gas production itself, as they are extracted by consortiums of Big Cos (state and private) -- mostly Russian, Chinese and Japanese deals.
It is all depressingly familiar.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 1, 2012 9:23:33 AM | 55
POA@29: "Its about greed. These scumbags in DC could care less what you pay at the pump. High prices are good for the bully pulpit, instrumental in dividing the people, while both sides of the aisle give it to us in the ass."
Yep, pure and simple. You might also add, the worse it gets for the much storied 99%, the better it gets for the also storied 1%.
It really is about the money/power/hegemony.
Old quote: "The comfort of the rich depends on an abundance of the poor."
Posted by: ben | Apr 1, 2012 10:54:06 AM | 56
The measures foisted, the threats trumpeted, to Greece, Syria and Iran
thru the actions of the Western core (NATO..) and the yapping, biting scout, Israel, resemble each other somewhat, despite the tremendous differences.
Pundits and policy wonks, the MSM, the news, don’t relate them.
As in, the Greeks borrowed too much and are lazy, that is bad, rotten, part of the EU; the Syrians are in a grip of civil war; Iran is evil personified.
That the ‘cabal’ for lack of a better description is taking over GR economically is easy to argue. Not one shot fired (say.)
Sanctions on Iran, trade, banking, int. participation, are presented as punitive and coercitive, do as we say and we will stop. (Heh, Question the ghosts of Khadafi or Saddam.)
The threat of military attack is trumpeted 24/24.
As for Syria, it is presented as a post Arab-Spring Civil war, in which the W might or might not intervene. Or have been doing so covertly.
All these countries have energy reserves or, in the case of GR, a splendid situation and shipping expertise and infrastructure (plus unknown, for now, reserves.) Austerity measures in Greece are similar to sanctions on Iran in their effects. Syria is rapidly being destroyed, and who knows what will emerge, but ordinary ppl will not be eating splendid meals or tootling around in motor cars, blowing balloons, for family visits.
It is World War 3, going on under our noses.
The actors are not States as in WW1 / 2, but elites from various sectors, such as Banking, Energy, Large Corporations, the Very Rich, even Old Money, and all those who produce, control, sell Arms or are connected to that circuit.
Grifters also support for short term gains, in many different areas, such as drugs, human trafficking, security, rebuilding, transporting, or just cosying up to whatever powerful figure for trickle down. etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Apr 1, 2012 11:05:45 AM | 57
As part of a post reponding to Alexander @ 5, I linked to a post at Daily Kos, "We Grew Apart," about the amazing difference in growth of family income from 1947-1979 and after the Reagan Revolution began, 1980-2007.
What a difference a government mandated transfer of wealth from the 90-99% to the 1% makes!
I thought my post might have trapped in SpamLand, but it seems to have gone poof.
Anyway, what Alexander posits about Obama's rational is one hypothesis that makes sense, albeit it shows continued disdain for the lower quintiles of the 99% and might well make Obama a one term president. Maybe he has some kind of plan to makie a difference by September, but...how?
Maybe he thinks being "strong" against Iran will win independent voters, or maybe he just needs to curry favor with the Big Oil Big Money crew in order to even wage his campaign. That's where the money is.
And it ain't with the vast majority of Americans anymore.
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 1, 2012 12:12:30 PM | 58
Hit Post instead of Edit, oops. Meant to say that Noirette @ 57 is right: WWIII is the one between the Super Haves and all the rest of us, and they hell bent on getting all of us as poor as possible.
Posted by: jawbone | Apr 1, 2012 12:14:57 PM | 59
Noirette | Apr 1, 2012 11:05:45 AM | 57
"The actors are not States as in WW1 / 2, but elites from various sectors, such as Banking, Energy, Large Corporations, the Very Rich, even Old Money, and all those who produce, control, sell Arms or are connected to that circuit. "
but, but, but . . . you mean it's not just as simple as "Jews and Big Oil"?
You dare to deny the divinity of the Black&White image being painted for us by some rather recent additions to the comment-shpere here?
You dare to suggest that there's many shades of grey?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 1:33:54 PM | 60
why are the israelis, the israeli americans, and the israel lobby leading the push to expand the wars?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 1:47:40 PM | 61
Why are Non-Israeli-elites letting them?
Why are "elites from various sectors, such as Banking, Energy, Large Corporations, the Very Rich, even Old Money, and all those who produce, control, sell Arms or are connected to that circuit" hand-in-hand with these 'Israeli' war mongers?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:02:54 PM | 62
So far your previous attempts to answer that question have consisted of something like "To save Israel from teh AGW, and de Peak-Oil, and environemntal disaster, and SARS, and Swine flu blah blah blah maaan!" . . .
. . . . which to be honest is one of the all-time dumbest-ass answers to that question I have ever recieved
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:06:17 PM | 63
oh, and "de Penguins"
"Save Israel from the Penguin Hordes that will descend upon it when the Southern Ice cap collapses, maaaan!"
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:08:32 PM | 64
why are zionists serving the elites when that service is camaging jewisness?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:13:04 PM | 65
Why do men have nipples?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:20:37 PM | 66
"why are zionists serving the elites when that service is camaging jewisness?"
I already told ya . . .:
"TO Save Israel from the Penguin Hordes that will descend upon it when the Southern Ice cap collapses, maaaan!"
Do you even read this stuff before you post?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:22:14 PM | 67
why are you so sure israelis are serving the elites when israel has the bomb and is apparently willing to commit nuke suicide in defense of a bad idea?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:26:25 PM | 68
so - "cos Israel has Nukes!" is your answer?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:41:29 PM | 69
BTW: I never said "israelis are serving the elites "
I merely asked you why they appear to quite happily marching along with these 'Israelis'.
It is pretty indisputibale that they are putting up no resistance to these 'Israelis'.
So how have these 'Israelis' managed to force all these other elites so easily and willingly into line?
The Bomb you say?
Simple as that?
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 1, 2012 2:45:39 PM | 70
you got to wonder, dont you?
israelis are apparently stupid enough to serve the elites even if it damages jewishness.
or, israelis have gone rogue, dont give a shit about anybody but zionists, and figure they can bluff their way to... what? ...benevolent global hegemony, aka tikkun olam?
the problem with peak oil is that this is the last chance to achieve whatever they're trying to achieve, because their US protection is a gone goslin'.
it's a desperate situation, isnt it?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:46:24 PM | 71
it would be good if you refrained from confirming hitler's description of jewish debate tactics, dont you think?
Posted by: retreatingbladestall | Apr 1, 2012 2:47:53 PM | 72
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 1, 2012 9:59:54 PM | 74
Thanks - at leat one person tried to provide an intelligent answer to the questions I've asked on this thread, which is more than can be said for the person I origanally posed the question to
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 2, 2012 4:27:21 AM | 75
US government need to manipulate the price of oil higher in order to sustain the value of US dollar through petrodollar recycling, a slowly rising oil price is used to mask the collapsing of the petrodollar system.
"Oil is only priced in US$ worldwide. Gold is only priced in US$ worldwide. It is important that this process of dollar backing continue, as it is the only thing keeping this "digital currency" alive! It is also important that all other currencies seek the US$ for backing, as they would not survive on their own. Why would not these countries just hold oil or gold for backing? Because oil is not buried in their back yard and real gold would bankrupt them in a minute. "
"Oil functions as the true gold for the modern world. Indeed, it was only when the world started needing oil for everything that gold was dropped as backing for the US$ and replaced with oil!"
Posted by: nikon | Apr 2, 2012 6:21:07 AM | 76
Thank you nikon - also a pretty decent, and quite succinct, answer - even it you never intended it to be ;-)
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 2, 2012 1:46:24 PM | 77
Indeed, that is a point I haven't seen before. Thanks nikon.
In other points, Why the 1% are marching with the Israelis, that's because about half of them are the same.
Posted by: Alexander | Apr 2, 2012 3:42:21 PM | 78
@20: you know the difference between Gabon and Angola, do you?
Posted by: thomas | Apr 2, 2012 3:54:42 PM | 79
"Why the 1% are marching with the Israelis, that's because about half of them are the same."
Sorry - this whole 1% paradigm ?
Nothing but marketing bullshit: slick but empty of any real meaning worth running with.
the Idea that half the 1% are 'Israelis' [wink wink] is fuckin nonsense.
The map you've drawn is woefully inadequate for descibing the territory you claim it describes
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 2, 2012 4:00:40 PM | 80
do the rich 'Israelis' [wink wink] really give a damn about the poor 'Israelis' [wink wink]>
That applies equally 'diaspora 'Israelis' [wink wink] given that, to my reading of history, large numbers of Eastern Europeann 'Isrealis' [wink wink] were sacrificed * * * * to honour the soon-to-come "Birth of "Zion™ "
* * * * - The word 'Holocaust' translates directly as 'Burnt Sacrifice' [or so I'm told] and indeed in the Temples of Biblical yore, sacrifices, burnt and otherwise, were frequently offered in Synagogues/Temples throughout Judea for the blessing of Y*hw*h upon various schemes and endeavours
Posted by: Hu Bris | Apr 2, 2012 4:22:36 PM | 81
What is the larger plan behind this feigned naivety that "squeezing" Iran will not increase the price of oil?
My first guess at an answer to the question (at #3) was that the motivation was to deflect attention from Israel's crimes. Some commenters reckon there's probly more to it than that. And they're probly right.
My second guess is that it's to deflect attention from the hundreds of unconvicted war criminals 'running wild' in the Land Of The Free. I like this guess even better than my first, although it doesn't supercede it; it just makes it juicier (the Jewish occupiers of Palestine are war criminals too).
There's a Neocon-ish logic to it.
1. Neocons think world domination can be achieved through fake wars on soft targets, leading to huge numbers of civilian casualties.
2. Most of Uncle Sam's fake wars are, in and of themselves, war crimes.
3. The easiest way to draw attention from the crimes committed in one fake war is to start, or TALK about starting, another fake war before anyone has time to take a few deep breaths and think about stuff like putting Yankee war criminals on trial and executing them.
4. "Constant Conflict" and the doctrine of "Perpetual War" are evidence, if not proof, that this is US policy - except that Yankee war mongers make it sound heroic by 'forgetting' to mention that the targets of these fake must be soft enough for lily-livered cowards to Iraqify without sustaining a politically inconvenient body count among "Our (ever so patriotic) Troops."
5. Unfortunately for Uncle Sam's unconvicted war criminals, there aren't many soft targets left and Russia and China are helping to toughen them up.
6. So there's a reasonable chance that real trials of real war criminals will begin sooner than some Yankees and Neocons might have preferred.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 7, 2012 2:55:44 PM | 82