Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23600)	4/5/2002 1:12:32 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

If they don't think they can also hurt the intended victims, by cutting into his purchases or at least raising his price (for more than a few days), it's a very counter-productive program. Ok, stop. For one historical example, in '79 when Iran blew up, the price of oil tripled. Iran produced something like 2 million barrels a day, and before Iranian oil went off the market, there was a glut then too. That price shock lasted much, much longer than "a few days". Personally, I don't think Iran is in a position to lead a boycott now, regardless. But if there was a broader boycott, I find the idea that Russia and Canada would take up the slack "in a few days" to be somewhat wishful thinking, sort of like "Democracy in Iraq". But who knows, if the legions of bloviating pundits pick up the idea in unison, as they tend to do with these things, we'll know that somebody high up is buying it. A lot easier than formulating a real energy policy.