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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184942)	3/16/2004 9:58:21 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577900

ten, re: All of these factors are interdependent. How are we going to separate our economic needs from the geopolitical mess if our oil money is feeding the sheiks at the expense of the average Arab? How are going to block any cultural influences when capitalism is seen not as an economic system, but as the tool of the Great Satan? If military influence is a no-no, then why were you supportive of the first Gulf War, assuming you were? As I said, I was talking hypothetically. but to argue a few points: re: How are going to block any cultural influences when capitalism is seen not as an economic system, but as the tool of the Great Satan? Capitalism isn't seen as the "Great Satan", the US is (by minority factions) because of their interference in Muslim affairs. If there were troops from a Muslim country camped on your Christian Holy ground, how would you feel? If we had troops from Saudi Arabia with a base in Washington DC, how would you feel? Maybe you would be OK with that if they were the world's superior military power, controlling out natural resources, but I bet there would be a few radical political Americans that might object, even violently. Yes? re: If military influence is a no-no, then why were you supportive of the first Gulf War, assuming you were? I was. We had a deal. We kept it. But again, this is rhetorical. re: The only way to be consistent in this philosophy is to adopt the Pat Buchanan isolationist doctrine. Yes. Sounds not all bad at this point. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184942)	3/17/2004 12:31:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577900

I guess oil and nat. gas stocks are the place to be.......my $2 NG stock, MSSN, is up $.16 today just because it refinanced its senior debt. ****************************************************** U.S. Oil Hits $38 as Gasoline Stocks Fall Wed Mar 17, 2004 11:04 AM ET LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices roared to fresh one-year highs on Wednesday with U.S. crude hitting $38 a barrel after another drop in already low gasoline supplies. U.S. light crude futures (CLc1: Quote, Profile, Research) rose 42 cents to $38.00 a barrel at 1550 GMT (10:50 a.m. EST), the highest level since just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last year. London Brent crude (LCOc1: Quote, Profile, Research) was up 47 cents at $33.15 a barrel. Prices jumped after the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration's latest snapshot on the world's biggest oil market showed a further 800,000 barrels decline in gasoline stocks to 199.6 million barrels. U.S. gasoline supplies are running five percent below the five-year average, sparking concerns refineries will struggle to build supplies in time for the summer holiday driving demand. "What we're seeing now is that some funds had moved to the side making sure there wasn't a bearish surprise and now they are rotating back into the long side," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch and Associates. U.S. light crude prices have averaged almost $35 a barrel so far in 2004, well above 2003's average price of $31, which was the highest in more than two decades. Plans by OPEC to cut official production quotas by four percent in April and rocketing Chinese demand have combined to push prices to levels which consuming countries fear could hurt economic growth. OPEC ministers agreed last month to eliminate 1.5 million bpd of supply above existing quotas and cut official production limits in April by one million bpd to 23.5 million bpd. While most OPEC ministers have said they intended to implement the April cuts, there have been few signs of cutbacks in March. Tanker tracking consultant Petrologistics has told clients it expected the 10 OPEC members with quotas to produce 25.63 million barrels a day in March, down just 150,000 bpd from 25.78 million bpd in February. reuters.com