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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (8835)	9/1/2006 7:42:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217703

<President Bush said that that there “must be consequences for Iran’s defiance.” And so it is reported in the UK’s Telegraph that “Western powers were last night preparing crippling sanctions against Iran.” This begs the question: What is the definition of “crippling”?> I imagine a blockade would be crippling. If Iran can't sell any oil, that'll be annoying for them, but great for BP, Exxon and co. The SUV-driving people can afford a higher price for fuel than Iran can afford to have their total income cut off. The idea that Iran would use "the oil weapon" is laughable. On the contrary, the oil weapon can be used against them. Sure, it's inconvenient to have a small portion of the world's oil supplies cut off, but that can be fixed with a small price increase to $100 a barrel or thereabouts. People can switch to sugar cane or biodiesel, little cars instead of SUV monsters and cancel a few overseas 747 flights. No big deal. But I don't think Iran would cope without a flood of cash coming in from oil sales. They'd have a big economic downturn. They'd have to stop driving around in SUVs too. And stop having overseas holidays. But at least they wouldn't have to switch to biodiesel or ethanol. I wonder how many Iranians drive around in SUVs and have overseas holidays. Mqurice