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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41164)	3/31/2005 2:04:02 PM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

As I am getting more deeply back into energy, and as I am researching China, I am actually beginning to think your theory may be correct. I can find no solid fundamental reason for oil prices to be this high, and can find several reasons why it shouldn't, but it continues to climb. Have also been reading what the speculators have been doing, and it looks like high oil prices might be around for quite awhile until OPEC manages to overwhelm the speculators with oil. It is also interesting that neither the CEO of XOM nor any of his refinery managers sees any supply shortfall and they are not going out and drilling like mad. Your theory, which I must admit sounds ridiculous at first blush, ties together a lot of odd facts when you really think about it. The following might be unrelated but I doubt it. For the past few years I have been closely following tool prices at Harbor Freight Inc., a nationwide tool store chain that has mostly (fair quality) chinese made tools. The sales used to be so good that you could treat the tools as disposable. Lately prices have been getting less attractive and fewer items have been on sale.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41164)	3/31/2005 2:12:33 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Respond to of 206085

Good work. There are a number of reasons why high oil prices right now might be of strategic value to our commander in chief: 1) ANWAR, energy policy 2) as a global weapon against China (similar in opposite ways to the way we bankrupted the USSR with lakes of cheap Saudi oil while we were ratcheting up the arms race under my personal hero, RR--here, like Rocky, we are showing we can take the punch of high oil prices, but can the other guy? Who will puke first?) 3) Iraq recovery. How can a %@#ed up country sitting on an ocean of oil right itself? Howzabout becoming a wealthy country, with some distributed wealth? Btw, is anything happening in terms of privatization of Iraq's mineral wealth, local stock market, etc.? As per the Chinese curse, we now live in interesting (and opportunity filled) times. Kb

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41164)	3/31/2005 2:30:44 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 206085

Slider - There is considerable evidence that th eeconomic collaspe of the Soviet Union (a major oil exporter) was accelerated by having the Saudis and others agree to accelerated pumping to push the price of oil down. This hurt the Soviets, who were seen by Saudis and others as being aggressors in Afghanistan. Also,in 1984, each $1 dollar drop in the price of oil added about 10 Billion to the US economy, making it easier to pay for the Reagan defense build up. There have been books on the above, I'll try to find a link. So low oil prices hurt Soviets/Russia High oil prices hurt China.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41164)	3/31/2005 11:51:15 PM
From: Webster Groves	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

More than a little melodramatic. I would say. For oil to be an economic weapon in the hands of the US, a few things must first be in place: 1. The US must have oil. 2. The US must be less dependent on the price of oil than a potential economic adversary. 3. The US must be willing to destroy economically weak allies if it is to affect stronger adversaries. None of these things are true. Your arguments are hot air. 1. China doesn't need energy for its total population. The US does. 2. China doesn't have a commuting infrastructure, where most oil use is wasted on transportation. Not so here at home. 3. China doesn't have a world military presence to maintain, with all the costs and responsibilities. Both the US and China have ample supplies of coal and uranium. So for non transport energy consumption, both could be self-sufficient. The lack of oil will not cripple China, only deter it from emulating the US. Both countries are led by groups who see political advantages in maintaining an aura of conflict, when cooperation would be less costly in a truly economic sense. Unfortunately Iraq has shown the Chinese the limitations of US power. Bush should have stopped after Afghanistan, when the quick victory humbled both Russia and China. Those cards, along with world sympathy, have now been wasted. Major economic collapses have always led to destabilization and eventual military "solutions". I only agree with you that we live in interesting times (and you know you first said that). wg

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41164)	4/1/2005 9:02:17 PM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206085

this is curious. i found this input on the cwei thread today, and followed-up on it. i found an article in the lancaster, pa, intelligencer journal from march 28, 2005, and read it. it concerned a lancaster rotary club speaker, james. r. norman (former forbes editor), who has exactly the same theory on oil prices, us govt., nsa, and china destruction as you have posted here. the article stated he had spoken at two other cities before lancaster. this will take one to the newspaper article, but you will need to register to get to it. nl.newsbank.com; this is the yahoo cwei board link that will get one the article embedded without having to do anything with the newspaper. i checked, and it is the same article. finance.messages.yahoo.com