Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Saudis Screw OPEC...
Reader robc writes in with an SF Chronicle story about the Saudis telling other OPEC nations to take a hike:
Hours after suffering a rare setback in a negotiating session at OPEC's headquarters, Saudi Arabian officials assured world markets on Wednesday that they would ignore the wishes of other cartel members and continue to pump plenty of oil.
The late-night bargaining session ended early Wednesday morning with a surprise declaration that OPEC would cut production to shore up sagging prices. Saudi negotiators publicly endorsed that position, but then spent much of Wednesday privately spreading the word that they did not feel bound by it.
The back-and-forth illustrated new pressures and power politics at play in the group that controls 40 percent of the world's oil production. The meeting could be a harbinger for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, as the cartel faces its most difficult challenge in years: how to respond to falling oil prices in a weakening global economic climate.
|9.11.08 @ 11:55AM|#
The Saudis are just thinking long term. I'd bet a lot of oil
experts are looking at how much people reduced their demand for gas
mostly through behavioral modifications, and are worried that if
they artificially restrict supply they're going to permanently
damage future demand by giving long term encouragement to small
cars/hybrids/alt fuel.
The other OPEC guys just want the short term score.
robc|9.11.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Woo Hoo! First time one of my tips has led to a story.
Question of the day - how far does Saudi want to drive the price
down. Ive seen $80, but I think $60. It seems $60+ is where a lot
of the alternative technologies become profitable.
|9.11.08 @ 11:56AM|#
whatever happend to OPEC in Texas...you know the history of the Texas Railrod Commission and the efforts of the rockefllers to conrol oil output in the same fashion as OPEC supposedly does today?....I guess all those guys in cahrge of world oil production in the 40's and 50's probably never made any money and they jsut disappeared...or did they decide to build relationships with the newfound oil giants in the mideast? I guess that is just silly. Nope OPEC is run by foreign devils with no connection to the US.
|9.11.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I think toxic has it exactly right. The Saudis may be religious fanatics, but they are a whole brighter than the rest of OPEC. If you charge too much for your product, people learn to live with less of it or without it all together.
|9.11.08 @ 11:59AM|#
One other thing to think about. The Saudi's biggest enemy in the region is in Iran. Given that fact and Chavez's sucking up to the Iranians and Hezbollah, I doubt the Saudis were in much of a mood to give a shit about the Generalisimo's problems.
|9.11.08 @ 11:59AM|#
The Saudis may be religious fanatics
The guys in charge are not religious fanatics, they are
billionaires and want to stay that way.
|9.11.08 @ 12:01PM|#
Or it is a short-term position to influence the internal affairs
of another nation?
Nahhhh!!!!
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Saudis screw OPEC...OPEC screws America...America screws
Iraq...Iraq screws...
This is how STDs happen, boys and girls. Remember to always use
protection!
Mad Max|9.11.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Apologies to Technotronic (and to the readers in general)
Pump up the oil
Pump it up
While OPEC is whinin'
We'll keep on refinin'
On the market we're dumpin'
Pump it up a little more
Watch the prices go down on the tradin' floor
We are where your gas is at
We'll only stop pumping if you're bad
I don't want the price to stay
Get your loot into my wallet tonight
Make my day
Don't want our customers to go away
Cross my palm with your dinars tonight
Make my day
|9.11.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Or it is a short-term position to influence the internal
affairs of another nation?
I seriously doubt it. For one thing, I don't know if the Saudis
want McCain or Obama. For another, I don't know which candidate
would be helped by lower gas prices.
|9.11.08 @ 12:19PM|#
are there no international laws against
collusion?
There are no international laws period.
|9.11.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Woo Hoo! First time one of my tips has led to a
story.
Get's you hard, doesn't it? ;-)
|9.11.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Once upon a time (ten or more years ago) my pet theory was that the Saudis had a target price of $27- $28 dollars per barrel, because they did not want alternatives to be economically viable.
|9.11.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Doesn't matter. That increased supply will have no effect on prices. It's a scam.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 12:33PM|#
There are no international laws period.
This is the first I've heard that the Law of the Sea, international
treaties, the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court
were all mass hallucinations.
Say you don't like things, fine. But don't be that guy who claims
that whatever they don't like *doesn't exist*. That's fucking
retarded, in the bad way.
|9.11.08 @ 12:42PM|#
P. Brooks,
I remember in the early nineties, the Germans were jacking up their
gas tax by a couple hundred percent to cut consumption. The Saudi
ambassador blurted out in public that the tax was an act of war
against his nation and anything that pushed oil over 35$ a barrel
would destroy Saudi Arabia. He claimed that they'd done studies to
pindown the price when hardcore conservation and substitution would
begin.
robc|9.11.08 @ 12:45PM|#
lmnop,
Treaties are laws of the countries that sign them.
I can form an organization and pass all the "international laws" I
want, but unless a country enforces them, which makes them a law of
that country, then they dont exist (in a practical manner).
|9.11.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Elemenope,
How many laws let you mull them over for a few years before you
decide whether to sign on?
These are treaties. They're voluntary, and, if any country really
feels like it, they can even pull out of the treaty afterwards.
Half the ones you've mentioned we've only signed on to with
reservations, I think (LotS and ICC).
robc|9.11.08 @ 12:48PM|#
BTW, I would never say interanational laws dont exist, I would say that are retarded because their is no international sovereignty.
|9.11.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Treaties aren't the same as laws. They only carry the force of
law because they've been incorporated into actual domestic
governments' laws.
Similarly, the UN and ICC make proclamations, not law. They can say
any crazy thing they want (and they often do) but those
proclamations do not carry the force of law unless there are
existing domestic laws making it so. In that case, it's quite a
stretch to say it's bona fide international law when it is in fact
ordinary domestic laws that provide the force.
For an interesting and recent story about just how binding
"international law" is see Medellin
v. Texas
|9.11.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Law of the Sea
Wait, there's a law of the sea? Does that mean when I take hookers,
blow, and full-auto machine guns out past US territorial waters and
make and star in snuff films while higher than Tony Montana, I'm
not totally in the clear?
Mad Max|9.11.08 @ 12:54PM|#
". . . unless a country enforces them, which makes them a law of
that country, then they dont exist (in a practical manner)."
Careful, robc, you are chanting a summoning spell to bring John
Austin crawling out of his grave to wreak more vengeance on the
living.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573928453/reasonmagazineA/
robc|9.11.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Episiarch,
Not sure about all that, but in international waters you can
rebroadcast MLB games with only implied, oral consent.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
And so the guys with the funny blue hard hats and semi-automatic
rifles are also a part of the mass hallucination?
Huh.
robc hits saner ground by acknowledging the blindingly obvious
point that there are international laws (i.e. *laws* between
*nations*) but this whole "treaties are not laws" thing is just
short of hilarious.
Even article VI of the US Constitution defines them as binding law
(superceding statute!) in the US. Which bears on the more general
principle that a sovereign may choose to voluntarily cede some of
its sovereignty if it so chooses.
|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Speaking of the (absurdly low) gas tax, the Senate apparently
has approved an eight billion dollar transfer of funds into the
Highway Fund to cover the shortfall which has resulted from the
reduction in overall fuel consumption.
*Yes, I know; the best tax is no tax at all, but if you're going to
fund a government "service" it ought to be tied to usage.
|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Epi,
Last I checked, the treaty says you're fine as long as you don't
dump any of that in the ocean or use it to accost commerce. I don't
see why you'd dump any or it in the ocean, but Tony Montana had a
habit of accosting commerce.
Oh, and you have to have a flag. Otherwise people can take you for
a pirate.
|9.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
The point is that international law is unenforceable contract, which means literally no contract at all
|9.11.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Does that mean when I take hookers, blow, and full-auto
machine guns out past US territorial waters and make and star in
snuff films while higher than Tony Montana, I'm not totally in the
clear?
"Starring" in snuff films makes for a short career, doesn't it?
|9.11.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Plus monkey knife fights.
How gauche. Now, naked hooker knife fights, that is all
class.
Oh, and you have to have a flag. Otherwise people can take you
for a pirate.
But
this is my flag!
robc|9.11.08 @ 1:00PM|#
lmnop,
The phrase "international law" implies to me a scenario like:
local
state
federal
international
of increasing sovereignty. In reality, it is:
local
state
federal (who has adopted some "international law" as federal law
via treaty)
Thus, I could say, there is no such thing as international law,
because the only ones that matter are ones that are also federal
law.
|9.11.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Oh, and you have to have a flag.
Based on comments in another thread, I think he just waves his
penis around.
|9.11.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Oh, and Gabe:
Please, before you go any further with your arguments.
1. Watch Zeitgeist 112 more times
2. Get a copy of the 911 Commission Report, and numerologically
analyze each and every fucking word till you break the secret
code
3. Compare your results to the complete works of Nostradamus, and
find 5 correlations to his prophesy
Then come back and give us a full report. I SHOULD be dead by
then.
robc|9.11.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Epi,
How gauche.
Are you claiming that The Simpson's writers arent classy? Cause I
was just stealing my material from them.
|9.11.08 @ 1:06PM|#
"Starring" in snuff films makes for a short career, doesn't
it?
You clearly don't understand the oneiric nature of my snuff
films.
|9.11.08 @ 1:07PM|#
lmnop,
You mean the troops prided to the UN by the constituent
countries, in accordance with those countries' laws?
If you stepped back for a second, you'd see that robc and I are
making the same essential point.
No international sovereignty, no international monopoly on violence
initiation = no international law.
Treaties only carry the force of law because they are incorporated
into domestic law. Treaties can't be imposed on unwilling parties.
Bona fide international law would have no such restrictions, nor
need domestic incorporation to carry force.
If the "law" is per se utterly impotent, it's the same
thing as not existing.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 1:07PM|#
The point is that international law is unenforceable
contract, which means literally no contract at all
If that were the case, why would nations bother?
Seriously. It takes a great deal of effort to hammer out treaties
and get them ratified by the several parties. If they really
weren't even worth the paper they're printed on, why would nations
bother?
Methinks they know something that the commenters on this thread
don't seem to.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Treaties can't be imposed on unwilling parties.
Tell that to Milosevic. Wasn't he tried before the ICC that he
rejected and denounced? I'm pretty sure his protestations did not
prevail over the *enforcement* of anti-genocide provisions against
him and his government.
me|9.11.08 @ 1:13PM|#
You are all forgetting that this whole thing is secretly run by
the grey aliens, the Saudi's are just their puppets
BTW, I have a new blog. Not much on it yet, i'm still working on
how to use/organize it. My own chaotic thought processes do not
help..
|9.11.08 @ 1:15PM|#
The Saudis are almost always the ones looking to keep OPEC
prices (relatively) low. Thanks to David Friedman, I actually
understand why.
They are by far the largest producer in OPEC. The larger producers
in any cartel will tend to want lower prices while the smaller
producers will tend to want higher prices, because it's easier for
the smaller producers to cheat and neither be caught nor
appreciably affect the product price.
This is wonderful reading!
me|9.11.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Elemenope
Just a reminder, the guys with the blue hats don't get ammo with
the guns and aren't allowed to shoot anybody anyway. They pretty
much just run around stealing stuff and trying to get the locals to
trade sex for food and water.
|9.11.08 @ 1:23PM|#
The end of the constant barrage of Palin threads has left me... a bit empty, I guess. Sort of like the irritating friend you don't miss until he's been run over by a riding mower. It's odd. I even had a juicy hysterical hyperbole link all ready and everything. It's like I have blog comment blue balls.
|9.11.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Sugerfree,
You need to go over to Althouse. She does to or three threads a day
on Palin that always go between 200 to even 400 posts. It has been
like that since Palin was anounced as a VP candidate. If you really
feel the need to go on a Palin bender, Althouse has whatever flavor
of crack you need.
|9.11.08 @ 1:33PM|#
But they would just ban me for disagreeing. It's not the same. I'm sure one will come along soon enough.
|9.11.08 @ 1:33PM|#
"You clearly don't understand the oneiric nature of my snuff
films."
As a responsible user of snuff (Copenhagen), I find your comment to
be very amusing.
"The other OPEC guys just want the short term
score."
Not to mention sticking it to the great satan US with
high gas prices would be a feature, not a bug.
|9.11.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Perhaps he meant Iran or Russia, Dean?
Maybe.
On the international law thing, treaties are a lot more like
contracts than they are like laws, in that they are not binding on
a sovereign nation without the consent of that nation. Exhibit A:
the Kyoto Protocols, adopted by many but not by the US, and thus
not binding on the US.
When a country ratifies a treaty, that treaty becomes the law of
that country to the extent that the ratification provides.
Treaties can't be imposed on unwilling parties.
Tell that to Milosevic.
Individuals aren't parties to treaties; nations are. Milosevic's
rejection of the ICC is just about as relevant as Lyndy England's
rejection of the Geneva Conventions.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Milosevic's rejection of the ICC is just about as relevant
as Lyndy England's rejection of the Geneva Conventions.
Not so fast. First, heads of state aren't exactly "individuals" in
the legal sense of the word. Second, I'm sure his rejection of the
ICC was based on his country and his government *not having been
party to the treaty that created it*, so you're argument is
off-point anyway.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 1:39PM|#
...about as off-point as that abuse of homonymy I just made. Replace "you're" with "your", if you'd be so kind.
|9.11.08 @ 1:39PM|#
"Milosevic's rejection of the ICC is just about as relevant as
Lyndy England's rejection of the Geneva Conventions"
That is only true because he didn't have the Army to back it up. A
real great power like the US, China or Russia's rejection is a bit
more meaningful. Great powers are great powers and are going to act
in their interests.
|9.11.08 @ 1:40PM|#
the irritating friend you don't miss until he's been run
over by a riding mower.
I don't miss him *that* much. And besides, the lawn looks
fabulous.
|9.11.08 @ 1:40PM|#
The end of the constant barrage of Palin threads has left
me... a bit empty, I guess
Sort of like how you feel after your wife uses the strap-on on you
and then stops early because you've been "bad"? You really
shouldn't film that shit and post it on YouTube, dude.
Invisible Finger|9.11.08 @ 1:41PM|#
OPEC acts just like US farmers. They all agree to production
cuts, but as soon as the price moves up 3 cents they all cheat and
break their promises.
How much Fannie and Freddie bonds do the Sauds hold?
|9.11.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Sort of like how you feel after your wife uses the strap-on
on you and then stops early because you've been "bad"? You really
shouldn't film that shit and post it on YouTube, dude.
Your dreams are merging with your reality again, I see.
TallDave|9.11.08 @ 1:58PM|#
This isn't surprising, every memeber of OPEC cheats. That's why
prices were at all-time lows in 1998 despite the open price-fixing
conspiracy.
They all get greedy.
Mad Max|9.11.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Perhaps this is just a nitpick, but Milosevic was not tried by the International Criminal Court. He was tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a specialized body set up by the UN Security Council just for ex-Yugoslavia. Most of the defendants are Serbs - which in liberal terms would normally be a case of systemic racism, but not in this case of course because Serbs aren't people of color.
|9.11.08 @ 2:08PM|#
"which in liberal terms would normally be a case of systemic
racism, but not in this case of course because Serbs aren't people
of color."
That and Bill Clinton fought that war. Belive me, had George Bush
fought that war, we would hear no end about our criminal Albanian
and Croation friends and the Serbian victims of cowboy imperialism.
Also, if you go into the real fever swamps of the left, you will
find people defending Milosovic and the Serbs. In some place no
enemy of the US is too vile to defend.
|9.11.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Your dreams are merging with your reality again, I
see.
Well, I did say my snuff films were oneiric.
TallDave|9.11.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Also, if you go into the real fever swamps of the left, you
will find people defending Milosovic and the Serbs.
My most vivid memory of that conflict will always be the adorable
little blond Serbian high school girl on TV, patiently explaining
to a U.S. reporter than the Kurds were fleeing because NATO was
bombing them.
robc|9.11.08 @ 2:14PM|#
TallDave,
Im sure the Kurds in Yugoslavia were fleeing. That is some kind of
lost.
Mad Max|9.11.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Here is a highly interesting account of how the Kosovo Liberation Army waged a terrorist campaign against Serbia in a successful attempt to promote "humanitarian" intervention by the U.S.
|9.11.08 @ 2:22PM|#
The KLA are basically a mafia. Not that the Serbs are nice guys either, but no one in that region hands are clean.
|9.11.08 @ 2:26PM|#
" how to respond to falling oil prices in a weakening global
economic climate."
Wait until after the elections!
For Conspiracy lovers out there….here's a bone…..
On July 14, 2006 crude hit its high for the year at 78.40. It then
went into a steady retreat to hit its low for the year at 54.86 on
November 17, 2006. I believe the elections were on November 7th
that year.
On July 11th, 2008 crude hit its high for the year at 147.27. It
has sense then, gone into a steady retreat where it currently
stands at about 101.00 as I type this. The low for the year is
86.11 back in January. If I was a betting man (which I am), that's
my target for sometime after the elections. Where it goes from
there might be dependent on the election outcome….then
again…..
I'm not a conspiracy buff….just a trend watcher….
Mad Max|9.11.08 @ 2:27PM|#
"no one in that region hands are clean."
Something which ought to have given pause to the kumbayah
Clintonite interventionists and the neocon "national-greatness"
types before they singled out one of the participants in the Balkan
warfare as uniquely evil.
|9.11.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Second, I'm sure his rejection of the ICC was based on his
country and his government *not having been party to the treaty
that created it*, so you're argument is off-point
anyway.
Apparently, so would be a rejection of the ICC because your country
wasn't a party to the treaty creating it, if you weren't being
tried by the ICC.
|9.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Look. It was just funny when some commenters were making the
comparison,
but when the main page of Jezebel is comparing Sarah Palin's vision
of America with The Handmaiden's Tale, I feel
confident diagnosing feminism with Palin Derangement
Syndrome.
They are out of the fucking minds.
|9.11.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Mad Max,
We got suckered into that war. That war never was sanctioned by the
Security Council. Russia and China both threatened to veto
resuloutions authorizing it. That is something that your typical
pants wetting democrat never wants to hear when they are whaling
and pounding the floor about how Bush invaded Iraq without UN
authorization.
|9.11.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Uh, I was just making a funny with "Palin Derangement Syndrome." I didn't know professional assbag Malkin started using it...
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Apparently...if you weren't being tried by the
ICC.
Point taken. I was mistaken as to which court was the trial body.
But Mad Max's addition to our body of facts only makes the
situation for "the only int'l laws are voluntary treaties" folks
worse, since the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia was *certainly* not recognized by the government of
Serbia.
The only argument left is that, I suppose, because Serbia was a
(provisional?) member of the United Nations at the time, perhaps
their membership in that body was de facto consent for the tribunal
to be created. But that in turn implies that the UN is capable of
unilaterally abrogating sovereignty of nations...
Hm...
No line of argument leads to anywhere but a deeper hole. That
international laws exist, sometimes without the consent of party
nations, seems to be the only legitimate conclusion to be drawn
from the Milosevic example.
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 2:41PM|#
You insensative bastard!
I'm impressed that Trig is up to Hit & Run commentary
standards, high as they are.
And yes, yes I am.
|9.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#
I am confused Sugerfree. I thought her running for VP made things like Putin's Russia. Don't these idiots understand how bad they make the Democrats look and how much they hurt their own cause? If I were Obama, I would put a hit out on them to get them to shut up.
|9.11.08 @ 2:45PM|#
John,
Without the chattering classes where would the Democratic Party be?
He can't afford to shut them up, but they are approaching Troofer
levels of nuttiness.
JD|9.11.08 @ 2:45PM|#
No international sovereignty, no international monopoly on
violence initiation = no international law.
No, Love is the Law:
http://216.17.63.111/movies/suburbs/litl-h.mov
|9.11.08 @ 2:46PM|#
RC,
There really isn't a good argument for extending the jurisdication
of ICTY over Serbia, beyond might makes right. Serbia never signed
onto it or submitted itself to it. Further, Milosovic was the head
of a sovereign country and immune form criminal prosecution.
Imagine if the ICC grabbed a US official overseas. The US never
agreed to jurisdiction of the ICC over its members. People would go
apeshit and rightfully so. Milosovic was a real asshole, but I
don't think prosecuting him was a very good idea.
|9.11.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Why are you surprised, NutraSweet? I just commented the other day on a Marcotte/KMW thread that she was making it sound like we lived in The Handmaid's Tale.
|9.11.08 @ 2:51PM|#
"Without the chattering classes where would the Democratic Party
be? He can't afford to shut them up, but they are approaching
Troofer levels of nuttiness."
They are and it hurts the Democrats. Why do the Democrats have an
image of being elitist even though poor people tend to be
Democratic? Because the most puplic and vocal Democrats in the
world are elitist, hypocritical assholes in the media, academia,
and Hollywood. Imagine if a large portion of the media, and all of
academia and Hollywood in the 1950s had been infested with John
Birch society whackos who made no secret of their wackyness. How
many national elections would the Republicans have won? Damn few.
The "liberal media" such as it is, is a ball and chain on the
Democrats not a help.
|9.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Well, it was trickling in for a little while, now it seems to be
a flood.
That they could believe, even in the middle of a hyperbolic fit,
that the majority men would allow their
wives/daughters/mothers/sisters/friends to be enslaved for the
benefit of a theocratic few indicates that they hate men on a very
basic level.
But I forget...
"Sarah Palin is attractive" = misogyny
and
"Men want to sell us into slavery for breeding purposes" =
enlightened political commentary
robc|9.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#
lmnop,
That international laws exist, sometimes without the consent of
party nations, seems to be the only legitimate conclusion to be
drawn from the Milosevic example.
How about, "after a war, the winners sometimes use legal sounding
bodies to punish the losers"? In days of yore, countries didnt need
to justify imprisoning/executing the losers.
|9.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#
"Men want to sell us into slavery for breeding purposes" =
enlightened political commentary"
I think there might be some wish fulfillment going on there. Kind
of like the scene in South Park where the cops grab the gay teacher
in the locker room and he drops his towel and stands against the
wall and yells "no Mr. Policeman, don't violate me".
Elle|9.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#
"I'm not a conspiracy buff….just a trend watcher…."
And yet, you still wear capri pants.
|9.11.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Yeah, yeah... you anonymous coward. Let's all talk about fucking Bosnia some more. We'll have that solved in just a few more threads.
|9.11.08 @ 3:14PM|#
No Sugerfree, lets argue about Iraq some more. Maybe Joe is oncall and can get on the thread to.
|9.11.08 @ 3:22PM|#
"Yeah, yeah... you anonymous coward"
Sugarfreejay? That's your real name?
Jesus! This whole, one can't present an opinion without an email
address is both bogus and anti-libertarian.
What Reason needs to do is establish an open Palin thread to cull
out the feeble.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Does that mean when I take hookers, blow, and full-auto
machine guns out past US territorial waters and make and star in
snuff films while higher than Tony Montana, I'm not totally in the
clear?
What, do you work for Minerals Management Service of the Department
of Interior?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/10/news/economy/oil_officials.ap/index.htm
|9.11.08 @ 3:25PM|#
"And yet, you still wear capri pants."
I guess you're not going to hit on me then….***shrugs***
|9.11.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Sugarfreejay? That's your real name?
It's at least an email address that actually works, tuff gai.
|9.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Jesus! This whole, one can't present an opinion without an
email address is both bogus and anti-libertarian.
Go ahead and show me where I said you had to give a email address
to post or use your real name.
I just assumed you are a regular poster hiding behind a temp-name
to be funny. Dial the whining asshole act back a little.
Enough About Palin |9.11.08 @ 3:40PM|#
"Go ahead and show me where I said you had to give a email
address to post or use your real name"
"you anonymous coward".
|9.11.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Cartel means never having to say you're Saudi.
Oh, and $45/barrel oil between now and 2012.
|9.11.08 @ 3:47PM|#
Well, it was your long and storied career posting here as
"Enough About Palin" that should have tipped me off that weren't
momentarily adopting a name just to make a playful slap at John or
I to suggest, I don't know, that you might be tired with
discussions of Sarah Palin.
But feel free to put some more words in my mouth.
|9.11.08 @ 3:49PM|#
"Oh, and $45/barrel oil between now and 2012."
That reminds me that about two years ago Chavez said oil should be
capped at $50/bl. I asked my boss, an energy analyst, what he
thought about that and he said it meant Chavez was afraid the price
was going to drop below $50. Of course it didn't, but I've always
wondered what would have happened -- not that it would have bee
likely -- if OPEC had made a commitment to that price cap.
|9.11.08 @ 3:53PM|#
The only argument left is that, I suppose, because Serbia
was a (provisional?) member of the United Nations at the time,
perhaps their membership in that body was de facto consent for the
tribunal to be created.
Actually, I wonder if Milosevic lacked standing to assert that the
trial court lacked jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction of the court
over one of its citizens was a matter for the government to consent
or object to.
There really isn't a good argument for extending the
jurisdication of ICTY over Serbia, beyond might makes right. Serbia
never signed onto it or submitted itself to it.
That doesn't help, but if Serbia did not intervene in the
proceedings, it could be said to have given de facto consent.
Don't get me wrong, the whole thing gives me deep misgivings. It
sounds like "sovereignty creep", with the UN trying to pick up
attributes of sovereignty over anyone on the planet, on the
sly.
Further, Milosovic was the head of a sovereign country and
immune form criminal prosecution.
Sovereign immunity is one of those "principles" that I am deeply
conflicted about.
|9.11.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Oh, and $45/barrel oil between now and 2012.
Talk is cheap. Are you shorting the market?
I think we'll be lucky to see the south side of $100 for any length
of time.
|9.11.08 @ 4:08PM|#
RC,
If I knew how to short oil I would. It will be at $80 a barrell
before the end of next summer.
|9.11.08 @ 4:09PM|#
"Well, it was your long and storied career posting here as
"Enough About Palin" that should have tipped me off that weren't
momentarily adopting a name just to make a playful slap at John or
I to suggest, I don't know, that you might be tired with
discussions of Sarah Palin."
I started posting here three days ago under the handle Libertarian
and for some reason this guy named joe started making false claims
that I had attacked him. I had not. So I decided to try posting
again with a different handle and given that nearly every Hit &
Run topic for the last three day has been about Palin, I decided to
go with Enough About Palin. From this point on that's the handle
I'll use so you'll who it is and because it now carries a bit of
irony. I have even created a gmail account just to keep everything
halal.
enough.about.palin@gmail.com
I am male, fifty-one-years-old, live and work in a large urban
center and work in the energy sector, which is what attracted me to
this energy-related thread. So you can imagine my frustration when
it so quickly devolved.
|9.11.08 @ 4:14PM|#
"I think we'll be lucky to see the south side of $100 for any
length of time."
From today's news:
"New York's main contract, light sweet crude for October, slid 1.71
dollars to close at 100.87 dollars a barrel.
In London, Brent North Sea crude for delivery in October dropped
1.33 dollars to settle at 97.64 dollars a barrel on Thursday -- its
lowest level since March 5"
I suspect it will brush up against $80/bl fairly soon, but not
below.
|9.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Enough About Palin,
Stick around. In a few years your handle will be pleasantly
retro-hip.
Most discussions around here de-evolve. I blame the chronic
shortage of open threads to hold our short attention span
antics.
|9.11.08 @ 4:25PM|#
"Stick around. In a few years your handle will be pleasantly
retro-hip."
The duration of my stay here will depend on the civility of that
joe fellow.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The duration of my stay here will depend on the civility of
that joe fellow.
joe is typically civil, but I wouldn't hang your hat on such a
flimsy hook.
You should develop a thick skin if you want to be involved in the
discussions around here. joe is not, by any means, the least civil
regular...he is, however, the most regular.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Enough about Palin,
A hint for newbies.
joe (with a small j) is not the same guy as Joe (with a capital
J).
Watch for the rules on the drinking game.
Did you have any thoughts on the actual topic of the thread?
|9.11.08 @ 4:45PM|#
I was under the impression that the Saudis have been cheating on their OPEC quotas for years.
|9.11.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Joe can be civil as long as he doesn't obviously lose an argument. He was exceptionally uncivl the other day because he didn't have a good response. When he starts getting uncivil, that just means that he is losing.
Reason Primer|9.11.08 @ 4:59PM|#
joe: capital-D Democrat, fond of strawmen arguments and often
demands links to evidence while refusing to provide his own
Neu Mejican: politest and most insightful of the left-of-center
posters
Fluffy: anti-McCain fanatic, but a libertarian. Smart and
deadly--like his namesake
J sub D: libertarian and valued member of the community
SugarFree: mostly makes jokes, turns into a complete asshole when
taken out of context or discussing feminism
Episiarch: SugarFree's cretinous side-kick
John: Republican; the last living supporter of the Iraq War;
frequent sparring partner for joe
R C Dean: libertarian, good on the party line
Elemenope: thoughtful youngster, the future of libertarianism if he
can shake off the last vestiges of college liberalism
Orange Line Special: psycho-racist anti-immigrantion troll; aka
Lonewhacko; changes his handle constantly to avoid the people who
filter him (the vast majority)
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 5:00PM|#
John | September 11, 2008, 4:45pm | #
Joe can be civil as long as he doesn't obviously lose an argument.
He was exceptionally uncivl the other day because he didn't have a
good response. When he starts getting uncivil, that just means that
he is losing.
John, you always say that, but it is usually when you and joe are
yelling past each other. In this context I think it is a snark that
lacks civility
;^)
joe, like others, also gets uncivil in response to people
mischaracterizing his arguments, making ad-hom arguments against
him, frustrated with his discourse partner playing dumb/or being
thick headed, etc... I have certainly seen him win an argument in a
very uncivil manner on more than one occasion.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Neu Mejican: politest and most insightful of the
left-of-center posters
Fuck you you right wing twit.
8^p
For the record, according to all those political compass quizzes, I
am a radical centrist with a a bit of a bias towards
anti-authoritarianism...not a hint of a left bias, nor a right
bias.
I am the balance point around which the left right axis tilts.
|9.11.08 @ 5:10PM|#
If I knew how to short oil I would.
Its traded on the commodity markets like anything else. Just Google
around. One word of warning, though - shorting commodity futures is
very high-risk - as the price goes up, your losses go up, so your
losses are potentially unlimited. I'd go options if I were you -
you can only lose what you paid for the option.
Caveat - my one venture into commodity trading was over 10 years
ago. I lost.
|9.11.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Reason Primer - not bad.
joe is a slippery bastard, given to moving goalposts, reframing,
redefining, red herrings, all my favorite tricks (so I know 'em
when I see 'em), but he will press you hard and make you raise your
game. Arguing with joe is a great lesson in how assumptions and
premises drive conclusions.
Neu generally has too many damn facts, so I don't like arguing with
him.
And no list of regulars is complete without thoreau, who must have
a real job now or something.
thoreau - when you look up "reasonable man" in the dictionary,
that's his picture next to the entry.
|9.11.08 @ 5:23PM|#
"John, you always say that, but it is usually when you and joe
are yelling past each other. In this context I think it is a snark
that lacks civility"
I argue with Joe a lot and sometimes he makes good points. When he
makes good points he can be downright charitable. When you start
pointing out things he doesn't like or he has a weak position, he
starts getting snarky. The thread Enough about Palin referred to
above is a good example. Joe was trying to claim that Palin was not
a good addition to McCain's ticket. You may hate Palin, but at
least thus far she resurected McCain from the dead for better or
worse. Joe was really out on a limb and he started getting hostile.
That is typical Joe.
|9.11.08 @ 5:28PM|#
"Did you have any thoughts on the actual topic of the
thread?"
I think the Saudis are concerned about Iranian regional hegemony
more than anything else and want to keep it in check. They know
it's in their best financial and existential interest to keep oil
out of the $147/bl range. When push comes to shove, they need a
strong America.
One can claim the Saudis are religious extremists financing
madrassas worldwide, but one could also say essentially the same
thing about Pat Robertson and (the late?) Billy Graham. I could be
wrong, but I don't recall the Saudis ever bombing their neighbors
out of spite, as Iraq did in the first Gulf war or as Iran does now
via proxies. But I could be wrong.
As someone said earlier here, they're billionaire
businessmen.
Oil infrastructure can be an early casualty of war. They don't want
that.
|9.11.08 @ 5:40PM|#
"Joe can be civil as long as he doesn't obviously lose an
argument"
I think that's what happened to me (as Libertarian) three nights
back on the Community Organizer thread. He asked me what I was
doing to help "Banging any nails, attending any board meetings?" I
told him yes; I had inherited my grandparent's house and was
renovating in order to donate its use (not the asset itself) to
house two pregnant or parenting teen moms who were actively earning
a high school diploma. His response was to attack me.
And while this is off topic, if the government wasn't siphoning off
so much of what I earn, the project would be completed much sooner
than planned.
Quibble|9.11.08 @ 5:49PM|#
This isn't surprising, every memeber of OPEC cheats. That's
why prices were at all-time lows in 1998 despite the open
price-fixing conspiracy.
The bottom dropping out of the market was more due to Asian (and
some other ROTW) growth coming to an abrupt halt, and in some cases
reversing.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Enough About Palin,
On topic.
Sounds about right to me.
I think it is in our interests, however, to get as far from the
Saudis as we can as soon as we can. "The Saudis" have not bombed
their neighbors, but Saudis have certainly attacked us directly and
a lot of the money used to finance those attacks came right from
our own wallets. Saudi money certainly continues to at least
partially finance the fight in Afghanistan.
On the rude joe from a couple of days ago...I think you got caught
up in general shit storm after joe was already riled up by
others.
John,
Okay. I was just yanking your chain anyway.
Not certified or qualified to |9.11.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Re: shorting oil
You could also try to buy puts on a ETF. Most of the retail online
brokerages allow you to do this now.
(did it with GLD couple months ago; up 100% but chickened out an
sold, now would be up even more)
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 6:06PM|#
RC Dean,
Neu generally has too many damn facts, so I don't like arguing
with him.
Sorry about that. Bad habit. But one that's hard to break.
On the Anbar/surge timeline from a previous thread:
The surge was announced on Jan. 10, 2007. That's four months
after the "tipping point" at which the Anbar Awakening really got
under way, and three and a half months after the briefing at which
McFarland described the success of the Awakening. McFarland and his
troops left Anbar in February of 2007 ..., before any of the surge
troops would have arrived.
More:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245