NationStates Jolt Archive

And no, this ain't an april fool :rolleyes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050331.wgoldman0331/BNStory/Business/

Oh shit...

Possible my ass. It'll happen without a doubt. The solution is obvious. We need to kick OPEC ass, or at least threaten to. If they raise the price, consumption will go down instantly (Well, maybe not directly. Not in power plants and such. But if the electric bill goes up significantly then I assure you I'll be turning out the light when ever I leave a room, as will everyone else. It'll all add up.) and their profit margin will increase only... marginally, considering. This'll create a surplus of oil and the price will go down accordingly. Now it seems to me that we can avoid this whole situation if we don't raise the price in the first place. But leaving well enough alone just isn't good for them, is it? Well we can play that game. I don't know if a row of tanks is really involved in their game according to their rules, but we can't play by the rules any more! Viva cheap oil!!

Maybe we can dress up as pirates and steal oil from tankers headed for India and China... Yaar.

Or maybe we could *gasp* exploit our own sources of oil. The only issue is what that comprehensive environmental report that was released recently would have to say about that drilling. It seems as thought we could reduce the ecological impact of the actual drilling, even if we can't reduce the impact of subsequent burning of said oil. If we're consuming oil whether we drill it at home or it's drilled abroad then it's still the same amount of oil (unless the price goes up and demand goes down.. damn.) being used, thus no net different in environmental impact.

That being said, maybe this is a good thing. It'll certainly increase the will to invest more money into alternative fuel sources. The more money you throw at research the more ingenius researchers will be and the faster we'll see results.

I love this forum. It gives me a good reason to do a stream of consciousness exercise and as a result I get a more well thought out opinion.

Possible my ass. It'll happen without a doubt. The solution is obvious. We need to kick OPEC ass, or at least threaten to. If they raise the price, consumption will go down instantly (Well, maybe not directly. Not in power plants and such. But if the electric bill goes up significantly then I assure you I'll be turning out the light when ever I leave a room, as will everyone else. It'll all add up.) and their profit margin will increase only... marginally, considering. This'll create a surplus of oil and the price will go down accordingly. Now it seems to me that we can avoid this whole situation if we don't raise the price in the first place. But leaving well enough alone just isn't good for them, is it? Well we can play that game. I don't know if a row of tanks is really involved in their game according to their rules, but we can't play by the rules any more! Viva cheap oil!!

Maybe we can dress up as pirates and steal oil from tankers headed for India and China... Yaar.

We've already tried this, in Iraq. Problem is most Muslims are extremely nationalistic, and a significant minority will not hesitate to suicide-bomb the oil-pumping infrastructure to kingdom come. Hell, we would probably be pumping at least 3 million barrels per day out of there by now if it wasn't for the insurgency.

We've already tried this, in Iraq. Problem is Muslims are extremely nationalistic, and will not hesitate to suicide-bomb the oil-pumping infrastructure to kingdom come. Hell, we would probably be pumping at least 3 million barrels per day out of there by now if it wasn't for the insurgency.

I edited my post, but nothing you quoted.

If Iraq was just about the oil, then we screwed up big time. We're not getting nearly as much oil out of Iraq as we could be, and we won't be in the near future. We agree, but that's a pretty factual thing so it'd be silly if we disagreed.

First, you assume all Muslims are extremely nationalistic. This is a reasonable assumption. Most people are nationalistic, regardless of cultural background. You then go on to assume this means that they would be willing to suicide-bomb oil related infrastructure. As I see it this is where your reasoning starts to fall apart. I have a feeling that most Muslims aren't willing to suicide-bomb anything, period. Those that do are generally disaffected college aged youth that see, or at least saw, little future in their life. The vast majority of Muslims profit immensely from the oil industry and, like most other people on the planet, they value the comforts of life. The comforts of life can only be had with money. Without the oil infrastructure they have no money. The way I see it, money and the comforts of life trump religious zeal almost every time. It might not trump nationalistic zeal, but let's not mix up the two. The people that suicide-bomb oil infrastructure do it because they see it as a physical manifestation of the symbiotic relationship between the Middle East and the west. They bomb these things in order to remove the major influences of western culture. They want to do this because they want to install hardline Islamic theocracies in every Arabic country. As long as there's oil money flowing into the Middle East then there will be relatively pro-western governments to make sure that the money doesn't suddenly stop flowing. Along with this money and pro-west attitude will come western culture and, as insidious as it is, the materialism that every human seems to find optimal certainly has grown and will continue to grow on them. This, to the terrorists, is unacceptable. To Mr. Average Arab this is to be seen as vaguely dubious but accepted and secretly enjoyed. To Mr. Average Arab's children this is either great or, if they're like the anti-American Americans here in the US, as horrible and to be loudly rejected (while listening to the latest Good Charlotte CD no doubt). That's ok. They'll grow out of it by the time they're 30.

I suppose that attitude could be thought of as a combination of nationalism and religious zeal. But I wouldn't say that the majority of Arabs are hostile toward the west simply because we're the west. They might be resentful of some of our policies toward them but it's not so bad that they'll blow themselves up over it.

And no, this ain't an april fool :rolleyes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050331.wgoldman0331/BNStory/Business/

Well, the higher it goes, the quicker they will build these...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Bah, another GS pump and dump.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

Well, the higher it goes, the quicker they will build these...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

Thanks for linking that. I was trying to tell a friend about it, but I couldn't remember the name of the process. He thought that a process of making energy that feeds off itself being feasible was laughable. I'll show him!

I edited my post, but nothing you quoted.

If Iraq was just about the oil, then we screwed up big time. We're not getting nearly as much oil out of Iraq as we could be, and we won't be in the near future. We agree, but that's a pretty factual thing so it'd be silly if we disagreed.

First, you assume all Muslims are extremely nationalistic. This is a reasonable assumption. Most people are nationalistic, regardless of cultural background. You then go on to assume this means that they would be willing to suicide-bomb oil related infrastructure. As I see it this is where your reasoning starts to fall apart. I have a feeling that most Muslims aren't willing to suicide-bomb anything, period. Those that do are generally disaffected college aged youth that see, or at least saw, little future in their life. The vast majority of Muslims profit immensely from the oil industry and, like most other people on the planet, they value the comforts of life.

I edited my post; you are correct. I omitted some words I shouldn't have. But I believe that we did screw up bigtime; the WMD's didn't pan out, we could have brought "democracy" to other nations even more oppressive than Iraq under Saddam (North Korea, anyone?), which pretty much leaves me to believe that democracy is simply being used as a platitude here, and that pretty much leaves two possibilities 1)oil and 2)to settle Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam.

I edited my post; you are correct. I omitted some words I shouldn't have. But I believe that we did screw up bigtime; the WMD's didn't pan out, we could have brought "democracy" to other nations even more oppressive than Iraq under Saddam (North Korea, anyone?), which pretty much leaves me to believe that democracy is simply being used as a platitude here, and that pretty much leaves two possibilities 1)oil and 2)to settle Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam.

I think there was significant worry about WMDs in the White House. There was sarin gas found in the hands of terrorists. Presumably they got this from the Iraqi government. Chemical weapons fall under the definition of WMD. Not exactly because they can take out a massive group of people (like enough to fill a city block, minimum) but because they're scary. That's the definition so that's the way it is. I hear a lot about how there were no WMDs, and if there were WMDs then there weren't enough or they couldn't kill enough people or something like that. We didn't go in there with any specific quota that we had to meet. There WAS high talk of warehouses of WMDs but I think it can be contented that this was the actual goal of the invasion.

In any case the CIA screwed this one up too. Although I don't doubt that George W. Bush had something personal against Saddam Hussein. That would be an unacceptable abuse of his powers if that was his only reason for invasion and he knows it. If he really cares about what history will say of him as the media so often says then he'd think of a better reason then just settling an old score.

The Bush Doctrine of bringing democracy to the world, while noble, is unfeasible. It costs too much money and Americans, while liking the concept of bringing democracy to the world, know that quite well. It's nothing more then talk. If he does act on it I'll be pleasently suprised and then I'll be footing a massive bill and watching soldiers die for people that should be having their own revolution if they want democracy that badly.

We should have kicked North Korea's ass, not Iraq's. North Korea is an utter shithole by all accounts. The desperate state of anyone that's not in the military over there makes Iraq under Saddam look moderate. Now it's a bit too late. We'd undoubtably have China's full suport in such an invasion, but if North Korea lobs a nuke at South Korea or Japan then we still kind of lose, even if we do win the conquest.

I think there was significant worry about WMDs in the White House. There was sarin gas found in the hands of terrorists. Presumably they got this from the Iraqi government. Chemical weapons fall under the definition of WMD. Not exactly because they can take out a massive group of people (like enough to fill a city block, minimum) but because they're scary. That's the definition so that's the way it is. I hear a lot about how there were no WMDs, and if there were WMDs then there weren't enough or they couldn't kill enough people or something like that. We didn't go in there with any specific quota that we had to meet. There WAS high talk of warehouses of WMDs but I think it can be contented that this was the actual goal of the invasion.

In any case the CIA screwed this one up too. Although I don't doubt that George W. Bush had something personal against Saddam Hussein. That would be an unacceptable abuse of his powers if that was his only reason for invasion and he knows it. If he really cares about what history will say of him as the media so often says then he'd think of a better reason then just settling an old score.

The Bush Doctrine of bringing democracy to the world, while noble, is unfeasible. It costs too much money and Americans, while liking the concept of bringing democracy to the world, know that quite well. It's nothing more then talk. If he does act on it I'll be pleasently suprised and then I'll be footing a massive bill and watching soldiers die for people that should be having their own revolution if they want democracy that badly.

I took the cynical approach since before the invasion...that Bush was lying.
The only thing the UN inspectors found were a few missiles that exceeded the UN-mandated range limit; those were destroyed under UN supervision before the invasion. Of course, the Bush administration didn't allow the inspectors any time to find much else :rolleyes:

There was a false urgency about the Iraq war, which is why I believed Bush was lying. If Saddam did maintain WMD's, it would have been suicide for him to use them. I thought that if Saddam used them at all, it would be after we invaded because he would have nothing to lose. Fortunately he didn't. This means either he didn't have any, he just didn't use them, or they were moved. In the first case, there is no way Bush would have ever believed him, no matter what hoops he jumped through. In the second case, our troops have been able to go wherever the hell they wanted in Iraq for two years now to look for WMD's and there's no reason why they shouldn't have been found by now. In the third case, our spy satellites should have picked up any convoys fleeing Iraq before/during the invasion containing WMD's, but as this was not publicized at the time, I believe the "WMD's were moved" hypothesis is a byproduct of Fox "News."

We should have kicked North Korea's ass, not Iraq's. North Korea is an utter shithole by all accounts. The desperate state of anyone that's not in the military over there makes Iraq under Saddam look moderate. Now it's a bit too late. We'd undoubtably have China's full suport in such an invasion, but if North Korea lobs a nuke at South Korea or Japan then we still kind of lose, even if we do win the conquest.

I agree that North Korea should have been much higher on the priority list; Kim Jong Il developed n00ks while Bush was distracted with Iraq. Bush didn't even seem to care about the problem for more than a year.

In other news, oil companies still hitting record proifits this year...and last...and the year before that. It seems that every year they hit a new high, and every year gas prices find a new level to sit comfortably at for a few weeks before spiking again.

Welcome to demand and supply economics. The demand is insatiable and the supply is regulated by a commercial sector that profits directly from high prices.

We have an extreme example of moral hazard in this industry. The oil cartels have no good reason to be reasonable with prices. There's no way we can cut back on our demands, and they profit from squeezing the supply. They can get as rich as they want and the rest of the world can do nothing.

I hope like hell your very sci-fi sounding "oil from anything" concept works and soon, because I don't forsee this moral hazard going away anytime soon.

Possible? Oil will eventually get scarcer and scarcer, oil at 100 dollars a barrel is just a question of time.

The quantity of oil in the world is fixed, but our consumption is going up, every year.. it is irrelevant if the world oil will last more 10, 50, or 100 years, because it will run out.. and there are no other viable alternatives.