Whoa, somewhat arrogant there, Neo.
I'm not ranting. Your exclusive claim to common sense is a bit over the top, attempting to exclude any examination.
Your claim that my assumption is "simply not true" has nothing following, just the bald statement, without justification.
You have misunderstood the refusal to buy Terrorist Oil as "taking a quarter of the world reserves out of the game", which is an argument the Saudis use. The fact is that simply refusing Saudi oil for a few months, let a lone a couple of years, removes 10% of our current usage, which if supplied elsewhere might increase prices, except for the other issue. That issue is this: even just the statement of intent would crash Saudi oil prices. Why? Because no one else can buy as much as the US, and even a fraction of that hits hard. There is no need for a permanent ban. The threat alone is potent.
There is some fungability in oil prices, so that pricing will affect others worldwide, in the downward direction from Saudi boycott, and in the upward direction from alternate sources.
There is not need to take any risks of such a plan.
Simply the announcement of an intent will set the hives to buzzing, the futures markets to estimating, and Saudis into their bunkers and Swiss castles.
Your imaginary consequences don't need to be encountered, even if you are right and I'm wrong.
The frustrating thing is that this is not an unknown issue, but the "status quo" is preferred by all large bureaucracies. In spite of the wishes of the American people otherwise. |
