Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tejek who wrote (172438)	7/23/2003 8:42:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 1573848

What does it mean "in general".....does that mean some month reserves don't go up, other months they do? "Oil reserves in general have been going up", means that they have mostly been going up, not that day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year they have gone up and certainly not that they will continue to go up forever. Exactly how rare is it? Nobody really knows. And how quickly is world wide demand creeping up? Not very rapidly at the moment, but that can change. If demand goes up more rapidly then supply the resulting increase of price will help decrease demand and if sustained increase supply. And who has most control over the price? No one has more then short term control over the price. If OPEC could agree to try to raise the price they would get a long term reduction in demand, and if they raise it enough then alternative sources of energy will be used. Once the expense of bringing these sources in to use has been spent they may continue to be used even if the price was lowered. Kuwaiti and Saudi oil is mostly in good hands. Saudi and Kuwaiti oil was under potential threat from Iraq. Dealing with this potential threat was a never ending military obligation for the US. Perhaps Bush figures that dealing with Iraq now requires more military force but that it has some end point in the forseeable future. Iraq's oil was not. Iraq's oil was flowing and we could have increased the flow without an invasion if we were willing to cave to Saddam on certain issues. Also there was no particularly acute oil shortage at the time of the invasion. Bush and company were speculating and anticipating. As you well know, no one can predict the future. There is nothing wrong about speculating and anticipating. You can try to bash them as poor anticipators or stupid speculators if you want but just saying they anticipated and speculated doesn't make your case. That's the belief of honorable people. I am not sure that's what we have in the White House. But even if they are, oil is still on the agenda with this crowd IMO. Oil being "on the agenda", is different then it being "all about oil". No one said it had to be the only reason. If it is all about oil then oil is the only reason. Look Bush namesd three axis of evil countries. Of the three, the one that was the most serious threat to America was N. Korea. NK has both nukes and missiles and a miserable, ruthless leader. Why didn't he go after long jim first? Because Kim Jong Il could cause the deaths of millions right now. Saddam could not, and we wanted to prevent him from ever having that capability. There is a growing demand for oil and a finite supply. That's all the argument that is needed for a nation that is heavily dependent on such a resource. If its an argument at all it is one with assumed/unstated premises. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next