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 (41894)	4/14/2005 11:37:39 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 206223

why did xon back out of Russia? i expect same reason they backed out of china.. exteme high risk, no trust.. better places to invest their money.. like building large lng plant in quatr?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41894)	4/14/2005 2:25:40 PM
From: t4texas	Respond to of 206223

lee raymond/xom stated in the same interview with maria, where he said xom did not have trouble getting enough oil, why xom divested its entire stock in china petroleum. raymond wanted to make it very clear, so he spent quite a bit of time explaining it. raymond said before the ipo that china petroleum contacted xom and asked xom to participate in the ipo. xom agreed, and raymond said xom told china pet that it would not hold its stock very long and would sell the stock within a few years. when xom sold the china pet stock, raymond said it meant nothing. raymond said xom bought the stock as a favor on the ipo.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41894)	4/18/2005 4:58:22 AM
From: croesus1111	Respond to of 206223

Slider, even if what you say about the US government trying to use high oil prices to collapse the Chinese government is correct, and even if it succeeds at this supposed task, it isn't necessarily going to have a significant effect on the US's conflicts with China. 1. The yuan peg: China will still have a central bank that will pursue policies in China's interests. 2. Free trade: So because the Chinese "communist" government collapses, they will suddenly drop all their trade barriers? Just like that capitalist country Japan? 3. Because the Chinese government changes, China will suddenly relinquish disputed territorial claims? 4. Because the Chinese government changes, China will stop trying to do what's in it's best interests for securing natural resources for its industry? The old Soviet Union was a country with a massively overestimated GDP, with most of its money going into defense spending. China is the third largest economy in the world, and is not going to collapse just because of high oil prices. There may be a recession there, or even a depression, but that country is not going away as a world power. Whatever happens, it is now, more and more, the manufacturer of the world's stuff. For the near future, as long as people buy stuff, most of it is going to be made there (or someplace else with equally cheap labor and equally good infrastucture). Just ask Walmart.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41894)	4/18/2005 5:26:48 AM
From: croesus1111	Respond to of 206223

Slider, another problem with the US conspiring to keep oil prices high: Suppose the US government were able to bring on a recession in China using high oil prices. The Chinese government feeling its continued existence threatened, may not take the Mikhail Gorbachev route. They might get more belligerent in an effort to rally their people behind them, despite the increased unemployment. So the strategy could have the opposite of the intended effect. All of this assumes, of course, that such a strategy is really taking place; I'm not convinced.

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (41894)	4/18/2005 5:46:29 AM
From: croesus1111	Respond to of 206223

More about Slider's theoretical biting China's nose to spite our face scenario: China has a counter move available, which would be biting its own nose to spite the US face--it just needs to slow down its buying of US treasury bills to seriously damage both economies. These economies are too interlinked to bring one down without devastating the other. It wasn't that way with the old Soviet Union. What Slider is really talking about with the US vs China is a potential economic doomsday scenario. I wouldn't put it past the neo-cons to come up with that kind of plan, and even to implement it. But the risk-reward ratio for such a play is absurd.