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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4844)	8/19/2002 5:43:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Oil Nears $30 as OPEC Keeping Curbs Monday, August 19, 2002 3:07 p.m. EDT - - - - - NEW YORK (Reuters) - Surging oil prices hit 11- month highs just below $30 a barrel on Monday as Kuwait said it did not expect the OPEC cartel to ease supply curbs despite falling U.S. stocks and fears of military conflict in Iraq. Oil traders have expected OPEC ministers meeting in Japan next month to loosen tough production limits as crude prices are nearing pain levels for Western consumer nations, and demand normally balloons in the last quarter of the year. New York crude futures raced to a peak of $29.95, just three cents below levels struck in the immediate aftermath of last September's attacks on New York and Washington. Prices ended 57 cents up at $29.95. International benchmark Brent crude oil in London closed 27 cents higher at $27.27 a barrel. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has held official production levels at the lowest level for a decade this year, helping to push crude prices up almost 50 percent despite sluggish fuel demand in a downbeat economy. Middle East-dominated OPEC, which controls two-thirds of world exports, meets on September 19 to chart output policy for the fourth quarter. Kuwait's acting oil minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah said he did not expect the OPEC cartel to raise output unless the price of its basket of crudes went above $28 per barrel. OPEC's export price stood at $26.58 on Friday. FEAR PREMIUM Oil prices already carry a premium reflecting market fears of a supply hitch in the Middle East, home to two thirds of world oil reserves, as Washington pursues its policy to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Mike Rothman, oil analyst at investment bank Merrill Lynch, said he still expected OPEC to sanction higher output levels. "Our view is that prices are approaching levels making both producing and large consuming nations uncomfortable," said Rothman. "We sense that the pieces are in place for OPEC to formally implement quota hikes sooner rather than later." Consumer governments, led by the White House, fear that prices above $30 for U.S. crude could hit growth and endanger the tentative global recovery. The United States, the world's largest oil consumer, has called on OPEC to raise flows by one million barrels a day from October to avoid a price spike this winter. OPEC is cautious about raising supply too soon and jeopardising a three-year oil price boom that has generated windfall revenues to its governments. The cartel itself said in a report on Monday that it overshot formal production limits by 1.8 million bpd in July. Monday's gains extended a rise of more than $2 last week spurred by a steep slide in U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level for 17 months. Analysts expect strong gasoline demand to make another dent in U.S. crude stocks when the industry group American Petroleum Institute releases its inventory report on Tuesday.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4844)	8/19/2002 9:44:47 PM
From: pogbull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Another good read from Fleck moneycentral.msn.com "But back to my rant. The more that the government tries to prevent the cycle from playing out, the longer the process of finishing the work at hand. We had the biggest bubble in the history of the world, and the cleanup will be painful. That's why many of us were so outraged while the bubble was inflating, because we were sure of the pain that was to follow. Well, now the pain is upon us, and people should prepare themselves for a continued bout of difficult economic times and an unprofitable stock market. They should not allow themselves to get sucked in by all the wishful thinking that we see so regularly. The sooner we get on with the adjustment process, the sooner we can come to the end of the adjustment process. "

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4844)	8/19/2002 10:07:02 PM
From: pogbull	Respond to of 89467

Gold Bullion risk manager at JPM quits job New York, Aug 19, 2002 (ODJ Select via COMTEX) -- (OsterDowJones) - Don Eckert, gold bullion risk manager at JP Morgan Chase in New York is leaving the company, he told OsterDowJones Monday. Eckert's last day is Monday. From the NEM board on Yahoo

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (4844)	8/20/2002 3:23:54 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

The case against war on Iraq By Howard Zinn Editorial The Boston Globe 8/19/2002 THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate. The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... '' But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon. But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons. Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States. Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war. Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia? There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States? Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification? The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions? A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil. A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation. _______________________________ Howard Zinn is author of ''A People's History of the United States.'' © Copyright 2002 Boston Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com