Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Phmcw]

Lemme check really quick, are you going on a conspiracy theory about the US 100% controlling the oil market?

Conspiracy theory? Let me see. The crash of the market price of oil is known to be the leading factor of USSR demise. That isn't contested anywhere ,though peoples love to add "in conjuction with" to try to lump other causes in there. Sitll it's clear that if the USSR had more money, their other problems would have disapeared. They'd have imported anything they needed and could pay for their army.

How did the US achieve that? Well first

In April 1979, Jimmy Carter signed an executive order which was to remove market controls from petroleum products by October 1981, so that prices would be wholly determined by the free market. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order on January 28, 1981 which enacted this reform immediately,[12] allowing the free market to adjust oil prices in the US.[13] This ended the withdrawal of old oil from the market and artificial scarcity, encouraging increased oil production.[citation needed] The US Oil Windfall profits tax was lowered in August 1981 and removed in 1988, ending disincentives to US oil producers. Additionally, the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay Oil Field entered peak production, supplying the US West Coast with up to 2 million bpd of crude oil.

It removed the limits on its own production.

And in a second time :

In September 1985, Saudi Arabia became fed up with de facto propping up prices by lowering its own production in the face of high output from elsewhere in OPEC.[16] In 1985, daily output was around 3.5 million bpd down from around 10 million in 1981.[17] During this period, OPEC members were supposed to meet production quotas in order to maintain price stability, however, many countries inflated their reserves to achieve higher quotas, cheated, or outright refused to accord with the quotas.[18] In 1985, the Saudis were fed up with this behavior and decided to punish the undisciplined OPEC countries.[19] They abandoned their role as swing producer and began producing at full capacity, which created a "huge surplus that angered many of their colleagues in OPEC".[20] High-cost oil production facilities became less or even not profitable. Oil prices as a result fell to as low as $7 per barrel.

Which I understand a bit differently than the rather naive author of the article. Saudi Arrabia didn't need to do that, and in fact it didn't help.

[smjjames]

The second one sounds more like OPEC members being stupid and the Saudis raging at them.

The current deal is due to supply and demand. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the current one was a repeat of what happened in the 1980s.

The fact that Russia is so reliant on oil is their own fault, not the US's, not Belgiums, not anybody elses.

[Phmcw]

The second one sounds more like OPEC members being stupid and the Saudis raging at them.

The current deal is due to supply and demand. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the current one was a repeat of what happened in the 1980s.

The fact that Russia is so reliant on oil is their own fault, not the US's, not Belgiums, not anybody elses.

Nope, the Saudi would just reduce their prroduction to keep prices high. They have a limited amount of oil and no post oil plan.

The Russian know it and are raging quite a bit.

Here's another prediction, the price of oil won't rise as long as Russia keep posturing.


Btw how is that a conspiracy theory? The saudi are openely allied with the US, they are armed with US weapon, Friends with the US oil producers, and ennemy of the Baasist supported by the USSR.
The level of analysis required to come up with this "plan" is low, the reward is obviously military protection. Also it was offically the cause of the first gulf war.

Iraq also accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas for oil production. In order for the cartel to maintain its desired price of $18 a barrel, discipline was required. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing; the latter at least in part to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal. The result was a slump in the oil price – as low as $10 a barrel – with a resulting loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq, equal to its 1989 balance of payments deficit.[30] Resulting revenues struggled to support the government's basic costs, let alone repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure. Jordan and Iraq both looked for more discipline, with little success.[31] The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare,[31] which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.[32] At the same time, Saddam looked for closer ties with those Arab states that had supported Iraq in the war. This was supported by the U.S., who believed that Iraqi ties with pro-Western Gulf states would help bring and maintain Iraq inside the U.S.' sphere of influence.[33]

[Sheb]

Well, the good thing about being Belgium is that you're too weak to do much. We didn't do much to protect our Jews in WWII. Our police was incompetent enough to search the house of our national monster (Marc Dutroux) while two kids were alive in his cave/sex dungeon and not find them. We killed Patrice Lumbumba, the last half-decent Congolese leader. We introduced ID cards with the ethnicity on them in Rwanda, and didn't do much to try to stop the genocide.

[Phmcw]

Well, the good thing about being Belgium is that you're too weak to do much. We didn't do much to protect our Jews in WWII. Our police was incompetent enough to search the house of our national monster (Marc Dutroux) while two kids were alive in his cave/sex dungeon and not find them. We killed Patrice Lumbumba, the last half-decent Congolese leader. We introduced ID cards with the ethnicity on them in Rwanda, and didn't do much to try to stop the genocide.

Belgium host SWIFT institution, nato, European institutions, is a hub of the Freemasons and other orders, and one of the most important actor of European construction. Our politicians are everywhere and the remaining colonials have a huge impact on Africa.

What happened to Lumbumba was a bit more complicate than that, though, and he made a decision that cost Congo a lot with his last discourse.

We are extremely rich, with a lot of savings, and could have a huge impact on the word. Despressingly, most Belgians don't realise it and believe we live in a "small, harmfull country" when we live in possibly the most influencal country for its size.

[mainiac]

Well, the good thing about being Belgium

You make it sound like Belgium is run by the love child of Hitler and Barney Fife.

[smjjames]

Could you guys take the Europe conversation to the European politics thread?

[MaximumZero]

We could always barge in on them with MURICA, like we always do...

[Darvi]

We could always barge in on them with MURICA, like we always do...

I dream of the day where we have an Earth politics thread which gets derailed by comments about them Mars colonists getting all up in our business with their time-traveling motorcycles.

[FearfulJesuit]

She may have retired from Congress, but Michele Bachmann will forever remain near and dear to our hearts.

[smeeprocket]

She is seriously comedy gold.

I love that lady. Don't let her hold office, but keep her around anyway.

[palsch]

Open carry activist charged with double murder.

[smeeprocket]

Yea this country is nuts.

Some people shouldn't own guns, I don't care what the constitution says.

Like I don't want the ,ocal police holding on to my mental health profile, but someone needs to catalogue that kind of thing and prevent unstable people from getting guns.

It's not even the murders that are the biggest problems, it's the suicides. Gun suicides are massive. People are in fact more likely to kill themselves if they have a surefire, painless and easy way to do it.

[Helgoland]

That last bit is often ignored, but very much true - one of the reasons I'm still around is that I was too scared to jump off a bridge. Had I had a gun, the result might have been very different.

[misko27]

...

This I think people let this pass by without much examination. Let me digest these two recent statements by Phmcw at length as see what there is to understand. This is long, and quotes break spoiler tags, so I've only spoilered long text-only areas.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

• "Conspiracy theory? Let me see." Okay, so it seems you are going to address his questioning of your comment, apparently about the US controlling 100% of the oil market. Everything seems in order here.

• "The crash of the market price of oil is known to be the leading factor of USSR demise." Bold statement there, saying not only that it is true that the Soviet Union collapsed due to Oil prices (which I was not aware of), but that "it is known" by someone, probably a great number of prestigious people; I for one have not heard any of these unnamed parties' arguments, so I will have to defer on judging for myself whether or not they are right. Let us see how you prove it then, that I might learn my error.

• "That isn't contested anywhere ,though peoples love to add "in conjuction with" to try to lump other causes in there." You surprising man, are you telling me that no one contests it? Who's responsibility is it to contest it? Should I have contested it? And what does it mean that no one has contested it? I hope we don't believe things merely because someone haven't proved that those things are wrong yet, after all. And what do you have against "in conjunction"? It doesn't need to be one option or the other you know. So, we are hopefully now moving on to something?

• "Sitll it's clear that if the USSR had more money, their other problems would have disapeared." This sentence feels like some preceding sentence was cut out that would explain its context. Clear to whom? Not me. I know there were oil price falls around the same time, but, and please forgive me my ignorance, I don't see the connections sometimes. And I'm not even close to understanding how the US plays into all it, unless I imagine everything bad that happens to Russia is the US's fault (I'm fairly certain given recent events that my government is not quite that competent either right now or in the near past). But anyway, maybe it ties up in the end.

• "They'd have imported anything they needed and could pay for their army." Could they? I dunno. No one knows, because its hypothetical. I must register serious doubts about the late Soviet Union accomplishing that given fundamental economic and social weaknesses. Of course, I'm not saying that it didn't happen, I just don't see proof of it, and I'm not so good at drawing connections.

• How did the US achieve that? Well first

  In April 1979, Jimmy Carter signed an executive order which was to remove market controls from petroleum products by October 1981, so that prices would be wholly determined by the free market. Ronald Reagan signed an executive order on January 28, 1981 which enacted this reform immediately,[12] allowing the free market to adjust oil prices in the US.[13] This ended the withdrawal of old oil from the market and artificial scarcity, encouraging increased oil production.[citation needed] The US Oil Windfall profits tax was lowered in August 1981 and removed in 1988, ending disincentives to US oil producers. Additionally, the Alaskan Prudhoe Bay Oil Field entered peak production, supplying the US West Coast with up to 2 million bpd of crude oil.

  It removed the limits on its own production.

  Aha! Evidence with some meat on its bones. A citation missing, sure, but all-in-all its good. Where did you cite this from, incidentally? I can hardly judge its accuracy from plain text, and it seems you've forgotten the link. Looking online only brings me Wikipedia's "Reagonomics" article, which is hardly what I want; it will be worth consideration later I think though, so I will leave it aside.
  
  So, that the US increased its Oil Production seems to be true enough, based on what you've shown here and what I know. Haven't shown yet that the US did this to control the Oil market and hurt Russia, and that is different from simpl. Checking Wikipedia's article on "1980s oil glut" doesn't prove this to me, but it does make me aware of the possibility that it is the article that you are citing, given some similarities (although there is some difference in wording. Perhaps an edit was made recently). That disturbs me though, since that article seems to openly contradict your premise in several places, including

  The 1980s oil glut was a serious surplus of crude oil caused by falling demand following the 1970s Energy Crisis. The world price of oil, which had peaked in 1980 at over US$35 per barrel ($100 per barrel today), fell in 1986 from $27 to below $10 ($58 to $22 today).[2][3] The glut began in the early 1980s as a result of slowed economic activity in industrial countries (due to the crises of the 1970s, especially in 1973 and 1979) and the energy conservation spurred by high fuel prices.[4] The inflation adjusted real 2004 dollar value of oil fell from an average of $78.2 in 1981 to an average of $26.8 per barrel in 1986.

  (emphasis added by me). This section appears soon after, still in the heading:
  

  
  In June 1981, The New York Times stated an "Oil glut! ... is here" [6] and Time Magazine stated: "the world temporarily floats in a glut of oil," [7] though the next week an article in The New York Times warned that the word "glut" was misleading, and that in reality, while temporary surpluses had brought down prices somewhat, prices were still well above pre-energy crisis levels.[8] This sentiment was echoed in November 1981, when the CEO of Exxon Corp also characterized the glut as a temporary surplus, and that the word "glut" was an example of "our American penchant for exaggerated language." He wrote that the main cause of the glut was declining consumption. In the United States, Europe and Japan, oil consumption had fallen 13% from 1979 to 1981, due to "in part, in reaction to the very large increases in oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil exporters," continuing a trend begun during the 1973 price increases.[9]

  This unsettles me as OPEC, which Saudi Arabia was a part of, actually increased prices for some time, which makes me question how much control the US had over them, especially as the 1970s energy crises led to an economic slowdown that helped lead Reagan to power and provides an alternate explanation for the US increasing Oil production. Part of that explanation is Reagonomics, by which Reagan intended to help the US economy by deregulating, of which Oil was but one. This is important because it supports one of my misguided concerns about your theory: that, in general, countries care more about their internal situations then the world around them, typified by Bill Clinton's successful Presidential campaign slogan "Its the economy, stupid". Nevertheless, perhaps such explanation is forthcoming.
  

• And in a second time :

  In September 1985, Saudi Arabia became fed up with de facto propping up prices by lowering its own production in the face of high output from elsewhere in OPEC.[16] In 1985, daily output was around 3.5 million bpd down from around 10 million in 1981.[17] During this period, OPEC members were supposed to meet production quotas in order to maintain price stability, however, many countries inflated their reserves to achieve higher quotas, cheated, or outright refused to accord with the quotas.[18] In 1985, the Saudis were fed up with this behavior and decided to punish the undisciplined OPEC countries.[19] They abandoned their role as swing producer and began producing at full capacity, which created a "huge surplus that angered many of their colleagues in OPEC".[20] High-cost oil production facilities became less or even not profitable. Oil prices as a result fell to as low as $7 per barrel.

  
  
  Which I understand a bit differently than the rather naive author of the article. Saudi Arrabia didn't need to do that, and in fact it didn't help.
  

  And here we come to the end. I'm not, convinced, I must confess. First given the Oil prices were, according to your article, already in a glut in 1981, which is actually before many of the things you are talking about takes place, but specifically before Saudi Arabia got involved. Secondly, it seems like your quote disagrees with you? Clearly you point out that you draw different conclusions, but might I ask, well, why? You haven't exactly shown that Saudi Arabia didn't need to do that, and Wikipedia cites its sources; specifically, in that paragraph it cites "The Prize: the Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power." by Daniel Yergin, and TIME article from 1981. That's more then you cite, because you don't cite.
  
  In fact, the only evidence for the theory that this was a plot against russia is the fact that it hurt russia, as cited in the article here:

  The USSR had become a major oil producer before the glut. The drop of oil prices contributed to the nation's final collapse.[28]

  I don't understand why you didn't cite this, since it seems to prove your point (perhaps you didn't see it). Clearly, if the US controlled the markets and wanted to hurt Russia, it would lower oil price; assuming that the US controls the markets and wanted to hurt russia because oil prices went down, though, seems like thinking backwards to me. Again though, I don't think that everything bad for Russia is the US's fault (I'm weird like that), so I can't buy this on circumstance. Fortunately, you recognize the potential for people to not understand your logic and help smjjames by addressing his issues.
  
  

  The second one sounds more like OPEC members being stupid and the Saudis raging at them.
  
  The current deal is due to supply and demand. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if the current one was a repeat of what happened in the 1980s.
  
  The fact that Russia is so reliant on oil is their own fault, not the US's, not Belgiums, not anybody elses.
  

  Nope, the Saudi would just reduce their prroduction to keep prices high. They have a limited amount of oil and no post oil plan.

  Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  Now here we seem to have a grammatical problem, as I don't actually know which of his issues you are addressing (there are three by my count). You argument is that Saudi's could reduce their production and prices would go up. This seems true to me, but, since they are not a monopoly, it seems that they would then lose market share to competitors. But I am no economist. I don't understand what you are answering with that though. That OPEC is mad? Them reducing their market share would benefit OPEC I would think. The current deal? It does seem that they are capable of oil-market manipulation, but I still don't know what the second part refers to. The reliance on Oil? If they are so reliant on Oil why do they play market games for the US, if its so important? They have more Oil then anyone else in any case. It seems you are arguing against a point he has not made.[/s][/li]
  [/list]

  • "The Russian know it and are raging quite a bit." Russia believes it, clearly. But does Russia believing something make it true? I don't think I'm going to trust Russia on this issue.

  • "Here's another prediction, the price of oil won't rise as long as Russia keep posturing." I don't think you've proven that, if prices do stay down, that Russia's posturing is the cause of it, since that would require that you prove the US uses its control over the oil industry to accomplish that aim. You also haven't explained the mechanism by which the US controls the markets today, only how it increased production in the 80s. I expect this is next.

  • "Btw how is that a conspiracy theory? The saudi are openely allied with the US, they are armed with US weapon, Friends with the US oil producers, and ennemy of the Baasist supported by the USSR." Here you question his questioning of your theory, which was in response to his initial questioning. Questionable at best, I'd say. Saudi Arabia is indeed allied with the US, and armed to some extent (though this is true of many countries). Then you say that there is some level of collusion between Saudi officials and oil executives. Then you cite the Baathist party and the USSR, which is odd because neither of them exist anymore. Saudi Arabia's primary rival is Iran, who is hurt by Oil prices (interesting). The Oil producing point is the one I have the most issue with though, since the price increases have come at a serious cost to US Oil industry, especially Shale Oil, which is on tract to push the US past Saudi Arabia in terms of Oil production, but is less profitable at lower prices. Hmm, perhaps another motive for those price increases? Details aside, you argue that the connections between the US and Saudi Arabia point to the possibility of collusion on shared Geopolitical concerns. This is not a bad argument in and of itself, though the details are murky, and it requires significant work to prove.

  • "The level of analysis required to come up with this "plan" is low, the reward is obviously military protection." Here we see what Saudi Arabia would get out of this: Military protection. You briefly seem to imply that this is not a plan somehow, which just confuses me, but this is perhaps a grammar error. More of an issue is the implication that because this plan is simple to imagine, it is likely that it is what happened. I would argue simplicity is not the only criterion for a plan: for example, practicality, cost, efficacy, political risks, economic risks, etc. More importantly, that something could have happened is not proof that it did happen. I wish to remind you that that is what you are trying to prove, that it did happen, not that it could have. I believe it could have, you don't need to convince me.

  • "Also it was offically the cause of the first gulf war.[/l][/l]
    

    
    Iraq also accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas for oil production. In order for the cartel to maintain its desired price of $18 a barrel, discipline was required. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing; the latter at least in part to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal. The result was a slump in the oil price – as low as $10 a barrel – with a resulting loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq, equal to its 1989 balance of payments deficit.[30] Resulting revenues struggled to support the government's basic costs, let alone repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure. Jordan and Iraq both looked for more discipline, with little success.[31] The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare,[31] which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.[32] At the same time, Saddam looked for closer ties with those Arab states that had supported Iraq in the war. This was supported by the U.S., who believed that Iraqi ties with pro-Western Gulf states would help bring and maintain Iraq inside the U.S.' sphere of influence.[33]

    [spoiler]More evidence! Yay! But, um, er, Iraq saying something does not make it official. You surprising man, tell me how this explains that the US is using Oil manipulation. I would think from this, assuming that Iraq is right (and we have not proven this, let alone calling it the official cause), that in fact it seems that Kuwait had a very good reason to overproduce, as, to quote the article "to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal." In fact this even undermines the earlier assertion that Saudi Arabia was responsible, as here Kuwait is chugging along, with UAE helping. Are we to imagine that they are all controlled by the US? If not, we have a problem; if so, the plot thickens and more evidence is needed. Towards the end, it seems that Iraq simply decided to take out a rival, and the US spent its time encouraging it to play nice with friendly states. As a whole, I'm having trouble seeing that this proves that the US manipulated oil prices to hurt Iraq (if that is what I am to see, I am not sure), let alone manipulate Oil prices to hurt Russia.
    
    
  I'm somewhat, underwhelmed. I'm not going to argue that I've conclusively proved you wrong, indeed I have not; instead I've just not seen your arguments to have proved your point. If you can please help me understand what it is that I'm missing, I'd greatly appreciate it, as I've seen quite a lot of people trying to make that very same argument, so I wanted to take time out of my day to see what came of it.