Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

In an attempt not to be discourteous or uncivil, I have attempted to answer Lukester's questions. I find the whole topic boring, which for sure he doesn't. If you come upon this and are seeking answers to financial questions, you will not find them here. I am in Red. Lukester is in Blue.

Very succinctly put Jim.

In your cordial invitation that I should depart your web pages, you give voice to the brash and popular "my way or the highway" rejoinder.

Lukester, I've said nothing resembling "my way or the highway." If you are unhappy with how things are discussed on iTulip, to me a reasonable alternative is to look else where on the web for discussion groups.

You also managed to dodge answering the validity of a single one of the quite "large" questions I put to you in this exchange.

These issues may be "large" in your mind while failing to assume such proportions in the minds of others.

I'll list them here for you again - tell me if they seem petty or significant:

1. Is this website's function to discuss only investments, I don' know. and if not, does it have a mandate or permit discussion of any moral issues in the world? Seems to me it does? What's meeting with your strenuous objection to my raising morality, even as just a small point? I don't believe there are any prohibitions against discussing issues of morality, but if one wishes to instigate such discussions and no one else wishes to join in the discussion, the instigator might take that as a hint as a posssible lack of value by others to wish to expend their time to enter such discussions.

> Is this website's function to single out the potentially largest trends of the day regardless of ideology, and present careful analyses of them? If so, why does it overwhelmingly present issues confined to economics? Are there no other "largest issues of the day"? No critical international energy depletion questions on the table at all? Whatever is the outcome of oil or other resource depletion, I do not see where any discussions on iTulip are going to change the potential outcome. You'd have to ask the management whether its goal is to "analyze" whatever are the largest thrends. Everyone I know here participates on a volunatry basis, so if one guy wishes to discuss something, for instance you, and other guys don't wish to discuss it, what is to be done? You figure it out.

> Why is resource depletion, or "limits to growth" so often saddled here with such a caricature of a reputation as a sap's idea? It's not just my view - a few others have remarked on it too, right in their posts! Aren't these issues studied with care at the highest levels of US and international governments? I don't pretend to know, but personally I have not been bother by the lack of discussion.

> Does the employment of caricature in describing the viewpoint of the person with whom you disagree further our intelligence and understanding of "limits to growth" or "energy shortage induced mass starvation", or "energy shortage induced inflation" which, incidentally, Mr. Janszen specifically alluded in his 2001 article on Gold? Whatever you attempted to say here, makes no particular impact on me. Sorry.

> Why has the idea "energy shortage induced inflation" disappeared from these pages as a theory, after Mr. Janszen pointed it out very clearly in the 2001 piece on gold? Eric, like everyone else could be wrong at times. Seems to me it's now greeted with derision as a theory? Hmmm! The piece from 2001 goes on to note the 1980's inflation was politically induced (embargoes) yet it's common knowledge today's tightness is reserves induced (Charley Maxwell & many others). I don't get what you are saying here: inflation in the '80's, then "tightness" due to whatever. How are the two related? and this is not a question that I personally desire answered.

> Has this original idea, "energy shortage induced inflation" found little favor, because it contradicts and complicates the clarity of the now popular thesis here (Finster's, which you extoll unhesitatingly as "definitive") that oil price surges find their cause exclusively in inflation and not ever the other way around? I think Finster's brilliant assessment of the increases in the price being fully explainable on the basis of the loss of value of the dollar puts to rest any immediate concerns about us running out of oil anytime soon. Finster noted too that his anaylsis did not negate the arguments about peak oil. I'm 65 and I don't expect to be without oil as long as I live. I may lose the ability to purchase gasoline, but I think it will continue to be available. Finster's post was valuable in that it negates that the recent increases in oil is explainable or attributable to oil depletion. Personally, I think Finster is a great guy, with a lot of ability to see through shit. iTulip would be a lesser place without his contributions.

> Are the two theses mutually exclusive - and if they are not, why do so many here today jeer at what was in effect Janszen's original statement and acknowledgement, that oil shortages directly caused inflation in the 1970's embargo? Lukester, you mostly lose me here, but whatever is your point, I don't detect much jeering on iTulip, exception may be Tet and peak oil, but Tet is Tet.


> Why, to your mind, is a narrowly focused thesis on the effects of monetary inflation as sole relevant cause of oil price rises, a definitive interpretation of "the oil question" - compared to multiple reports coming in of major field depletions (PEMEX this past week?)? Because inflation perfectly explains the price increases in oil and commodities as Finster so elegantly demonstrated.

> Which issue will make the headline news worldwide if it's confirmed, and considerably change our lives: inflationary monetary effects on oil (aka. no real shortage), or "sharp fall off in production in 3-4 years (Mexico) no longer meeting global needs"? Regardless of what you see as the answer, how is discussion here on iTulip going to affect that answer?

> What if any, relevance does PEMEX's declaration to Wall Street that it will cease exporting have for our lives, I don't know, perhaps you should start a thread and express how you perceive the outcome. for the well being of all Americans, and for the world's opportunity to secure reliable supplies in future? (I've never heard a peep of an answer from you whether you consider that to be good cause for alarm!) Any merit to the idea? Guess what - that's what weve been arguing about! There is little that alarms me these days. I expect the US will be in Iraq 50 years from now if oil last that long there. Like it or not, that is probably what the whole goddammed war has been about.

> Lastly, why would you suggest I look elsewhere for a community in which to post such depletion news - news I consider critical and relevant, if this community thrives on diversity as you suggest? I don't think I said the community thrives on diversity. There is diversity to what guys choose to put up. Some of it is great, and some of it, to me, is foolishness. As far as your seeking a site that better fits whatever are your needs as an outlet, that has to be one potential solution to your frustrations. I am not telling you what you should do. You may do whatever you wish, but I think it may suggest a lack of something in your character if you believe everyone should share whatever burning interests you happen to think are important.

> Do you notice a large number of proponents of resource depletion here? I doubt anyone here questions the someday certain resources may become scarce, and here the best answer for the long-term future of theplanet would be to rid it of about 3 billion people--that is my opinion.
If not, why would you wish to further homogenize this community down to reduce the already vanishingly small percentage of "peak oil proponents" so as to leave more room for people interested in investment ideas? Would this increase the general level of inquiry on diverse events on these pages. Can't make mind come up with answer.

> Why is it "bad" to suggest we at least may injure the sensibilties of some far flung readers of these pages, by talking flippantly about hunger for billions due to scarce energy in the near future? There are too many people on the planet right now, and if you wanted to pick a topic that is of real importance and about which there is no discussion, then that topic would be population control. No one mentions it. Whether this fact as I see it answers whatever is the question you raised I don't know, but the fact as I see it is we need a lot fewer people on the planet.

How do you like your website community Jim - varied and inquiring, in unusual directions, or with everyone running down the same paths (all finance, all the time - 24/7)?

I think I answered this before.

Do you ever consider how "24/7" has become so trendy in speech when it is actually more energy efficient to say "all the time?"

This has worn me out, I did not proof read it. My apologies for any errors or lack of clarity.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

OK Jim, here is the 'nugget' of wisdom you can take away from this silly debate -

You asked ( regarding PEMEX's news to Wall Street ):

<< Just what is your point, and what do you want those who bother to post on iTulip to do about it? >>

and again:

<< Really, what is your point with all the blabber about peak oil? If peak oil is real or not real, what is it's importance here if one cannot play it to potentially make a buck/bonar? >>

The point Jim, is your country may very soon be losing access to sufficient oil to keep the GDP in positive numbers with dependability, insofar as GDP growth is fueled by oil. If that event arrived, it would not be temporary this time, see?

This may well have a rather deleterious effects on the quality of your golden years which you previously worked hard to win, let alone the quality of life of 300 million of your compatriots.

This is the 'radical concept' which you don't wish to wrap your perfectly agile wits around. Sorry to use such blunt terms here, but you are possibly being obtuse for the sake of argument and the issue merits more than that..

The fact that your only insight from this news is << what is it's importance here if one cannot play it to potentially make a buck / bonar >> reveals a certain "civic myopia" on your part?

What about the risks your countrymen face, of economically slamming into a brick wall at speed and our economy subsequently looking like a sharply impacted tomato, due to permanent oil crunch?

I find your focus on the world << what's in it for me , and why should I care otherwise ? >> to be A) an silly affectation you are using here for the sake of argument (I know you think about things more deeply than that), and B) not much inspiration for us Americans if there's a crisis?.

With a little more sense of our predicament being a mutual endeavor, with large mutual risks, perhaps we could show the world we have the gumption to surmount the threat constructively?

Recognizing this threat, setting it as PRIORITY # 1, and surmounting it, would be the single most mature, responsible act for national security which we could accomplish. Pretty radical concept, no?

The "guru" you've anointed on this topic, for want of doing some independent thinking of your own, will provide us with a perfectly sound PHD thesis on the nature of inflation affecting energy markets, with many scholarly footnotes, yet we'll still be perplexed why other nations are willing to give us less and less of their oil. It won't fit in with the inflation model, so we won't have any real-world strategy in response.

Without a frank acknowledgment of WHY they will provide us with less and less oil, we'll not have the urgency to start a MANHATTAN PROJECT to save our own butts.

That's where the harm is Jim.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

OK Jim, here is the 'nugget' of wisdom you can take away from this silly debate -

You asked ( regarding PEMEX's news to Wall Street ):

<< Just what is your point, and what do you want those who bother to post on iTulip to do about it? >>

and again:

<< Really, what is your point with all the blabber about peak oil? If peak oil is real or not real, what is it's importance here if one cannot play it to potentially make a buck/bonar? >>

The point Jim, is your country may very soon be losing access to sufficient oil to keep the GDP in positive numbers with dependability, insofar as GDP growth is fueled by oil. If that event arrived, it would not be temporary this time, see?

This may well have a rather deleterious effects on the quality of your golden years which you previously worked hard to win, let alone the quality of life of 300 million of your compatriots.

This is the 'radical concept' which you don't wish to wrap your perfectly agile wits around. Sorry to use such blunt terms here, but you are possibly being obtuse for the sake of argument and the issue merits more than that..

The fact that your only insight from this news is << what is it's importance here if one cannot play it to potentially make a buck / bonar >> reveals a certain "civic myopia" on your part?

What about the risks your countrymen face, of economically slamming into a brick wall at speed and our economy subsequently looking like a sharply impacted tomato, due to permanent oil crunch?

I find your focus on the world << what's in it for me , and why should I care otherwise ? >> to be A) an silly affectation you are using here for the sake of argument (I know you think about things more deeply than that), and B) not much inspiration for us Americans if there's a crisis?.

With a little more sense of our predicament being a mutual endeavor, with large mutual risks, perhaps we could show the world we have the gumption to surmount the threat constructively?

Recognizing this threat, setting it as PRIORITY # 1, and surmounting it, would be the single most mature, responsible act for national security which we could accomplish. Pretty radical concept, no?

The "guru" you've anointed on this topic, for want of doing some independent thinking of your own, will provide us with a perfectly sound PHD thesis on the nature of inflation affecting energy markets, with many scholarly footnotes, yet we'll still be perplexed why other nations are willing to give us less and less of their oil. It won't fit in with the inflation model, so we won't have any real-world strategy in response.

Without a frank acknowledgment of WHY they will provide us with less and less oil, we'll not have the urgency to start a MANHATTAN PROJECT to save our own butts.

That's where the harm is Jim.

Good, then hopefully you shall succeed with iTulip as your launching pad in changing all, some, a bit of whatever you think should be changed for the better of the future for the US of A. But, you will not succeed. You will fail. The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions. I sah Bah, Humbug to good intentions on the part of the insignificant individuals who comprise this nation. We, you and I, and all of them do not stand a chance, short of someday being provoked to overthrow of the political system by armed conflict. But being a society where entertainment, Nikes, designer bullshit, and iPod are what is important, any serious efforts on throwing off the yolk of the current rotten-to-the-core political system will certainly not come during my lifetime, and probably not your childrens'.

[Sapiens]

Rival to Nato’ begins first military exercise

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2204006.ece

August 6, 2007

‘Rival to Nato’ begins first military exerciseTony Halpin in Moscow
Russian and Chinese troops are joining forces this week in the first military exercises by an international organisation that is regarded in some quarters as a potential rival to Nato.

Thousands of soldiers and 500 combat vehicles will take part in “Peace Mission 2007”, organised by the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in the Chelyabinsk region of Russia. Russian officials have also proposed an alliance between the SCO and a body representing most of the former Soviet republics.

Scores of Russian and Chinese aircraft begin joint exercises tomorrow before a week of military manoeuvres from Thursday that will include Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. At least 6,500 troops are involved in what is described as an antiterror exercise.

Colonel-General Vladimir Moltenskoi, the deputy commander of Russian ground forces, said: “The exercise will involve practically all SCO members for the first time in its history.”

...

Oh boy. Gotta love the busines of war, it never ends.