Iran stops selling oil in U.S. dollars

reply to post by menjo2000


The debt of the war is payed by the average American. The profits of war go to the war contractors. Many companies make huge sums of money off of war. The Elite corporations are essentially stealing the money out of the average Americans pocket.

Also, When has America stolen anything? Um, the country was founded on land that wasn't theirs. The entire country once belonged to other people. Our acquisition of Hawaii wasn't exactly a straight deal either. Look into the history of that.

Being patriotic is one thing, but don't try fooling yourself into thinking that the US is some Angelic entity that has no blood on its hands.

Originally posted by johnsky
Someone asked why Oil is sold primarily in US dollars, I would think it has something to do with the sheer quantity of oil the US purchases. They are the primary buyer of oil, and hence, naturally their dollar is the basis for oil sales.

The fact that oil is generally being traded in Dollars was born in the early 70s.
The Bretton Woods treaty had been abandoned and thus, the Dollar's peg to gold was suspended.

The US government made a deal with the Saudi Royal House, that the US would unamiously support them in exchange for a constant supply of oil paid for in Dollars.

Saudi Arabia: A deal was worked out with Saudi Arabia, whereby the Royal House of Saud agreed to send most of their petro-dollars back to the United States and invest them in U.S. government securities. The Treasury Department would use the interest from these securities to hire U.S. companies to build Saudi Arabia new cities, new infrastructure which we've done. And the House of Saud would agree to maintain the price of oil within acceptable limits to us, which they've done all of these years and in return the United States were the guarantors of power remaining in the House of Saud.

In Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the jackals move in. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. Or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is to send in the marines to invade the country.

Now you see countries abandoning the Dollar. The fact that Iran abandoned it is not that bad, but the impact it might have on other countries is. The first thing that came up in my mind was, like Marg already said, what will Venezuela do?

OPEC countries are not satisfied at all with the Dollar and the price will have to increase to maintain equal levels of profits.

The source obviously confirms how dramatic it would be if other countries would follow Iran. It could be crucial for the American, if not the World economy.

reply to post by menjo2000


Several points....

First, "I'm willing to bet that" usually denotes matters of opinion, not documented fact. You've stated "we HAVEN'T known" implying that you are an individual who is in the know? What position in the United States government do you hold in which you can state as fact, not as a matter of opinion, that the US government didn't know? For several years now, the IAEA has found insignificant evidence of an operable nuclear weapons program in Iran. Yes, they have had the facilities to enrich uranium, with the possibility of enriching uranium up to weapons grade status, but non-enriched uranuim is useless, it must be enriched at least to an LEU stage in order to be used in the most common and effective of nuclear reactors. But this is all operating on the premise of Iran wanting nuclear technology for devious purposes... Also, not, I said 'real military threat'...Iran does not posess the long-range ballistic capabilities that

If Achmendiminthehead dropped the dollar....

expect venezuela to follow suit... soon...

The lynchpin in this is Russia. They are the worlds largest exporter of petroleum and if they move to settle in Eurodollars, then look out.

This has nothing to do with the Actual fuel being purchased, because i gaurantee Iranian fuel arrives in the US every day. Fuels are bought and sold several times before they arrive to end user, especially on spot markets.

This has to do with liquidity and strength of USDollar and support structure in place. Petro dollars are supported by massive deposits in the NYSE and related bourses to maintain liquidity and availability, and as collateral for USD exchange against the foriegn currency making the fuel purchase. When there is no longer the need to use petrodollars, there is no longer the need to maintain deposits in the NYSE and related markets.

The largest export the US has today is the Dollar. that is what has been holding the US economy up the last 25 years. When that support is gone, then the house of cards comes crashing down. the dollar is worth only what the world believes it is, because we cannot sustain the debt supporting the US economy.

the invasion of iraq that bush and company so stupidly carried out has a domino effect that is now coming back to bite the USA in the Arse; Fuel fears propelled prices and gave nations we dont get along with incredible econommic clout , and with money comes power.
The middle east views the USA as invader with good reason. Russia see's its historical rival sweating, and China see's its future rival in a vulnerable position.
Russia with Iran and Venezuela can bring the US to its knees, if China begins to sell off its USD reserves, then America is in spiralling depression. there is no ground floor.

reply to post by Smokersroom


what I wonder is how the US citizens will react to the sudden increase of the price of Petrol. If you compare europe and the US, the americans have a wasteful society with their fastfood and cars with large petrol consumptions!!!

Compared to Europe, the differences are simply wast.

Bush just wants to do everything to keep the american way of life. If you want to keep the planet for a little while, its time for a drastic change, America.

I guess I'll just pay for it with the 10%-30%+ lower income taxes I pay each year compared to the EU. $45,000 buys me a lot of gas.

EDIT: I "predict" an oil shale extraction breakthrough when stuff really hits the fan. And the U.S. has what? 5x the reserves of Saudi Arabia right here in the middle of the U.S.?

Originally posted by iohen
reply to post by Smokersroom

 

what I wonder is how the US citizens will react to the sudden increase of the price of Petrol. If you compare europe and the US, the americans have a wasteful society with their fastfood and cars with large petrol consumptions!!!

Compared to Europe, the differences are simply wast.

Bush just wants to do everything to keep the american way of life. If you want to keep the planet for a little while, its time for a drastic change, America.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by mhansen]

Originally posted by menjo2000

Actaully, the Philipines were under our protection from the Jap's in WWII, are we still there... no. Did we ever intend to stay... no. Once they got a stabble government up and running, we left it to them to run. So we basically "took" from the "takers" and gave it back to the natives... I think that is a good thing, and you sir have received a HUGE "fail"... thank you =)

Why are Americans so oblivious to their own history?

You "won" the Philippines in the Spanish-American war, along with Cuba, Guam and Puerto Rico. You still hold the latter two. The Philippine population wasn`t all that pleased with being an American territory, which led to the Philippine-American war, which you called off in 1903 (but continued in earnest until 1913). Yes, the Japanese invaded and held the islands, but they were not granted independence from the United States until July 4, 1946.

As far as "giving back to the natives" and "leaving it for them to run", as you say - the USA granted independence 50 years after the end of the Spanish American war - and MacArthur virtually handed the presidency to Manuel Roxas - the first in a series of post-commonwealth American puppet presidents, which have included Quirino, Magsaysay, and finally the American-backed tragedy that was Ferdinand Marcos.

As far as "not intending to stay".... I`ve been to Guam, and you`re quite dug in there. Same goes for Puerto Rico - just biding your time to "hand it back to the natives"?

reply to post by iohen

what I wonder is how the US citizens will react to the sudden increase of the price of Petrol.

I don't think the cost of gas will be nearly as impactive as the collapse of the dollar if other nations such as Russia follow suit.

Also, people keep throwing around the data that the US has 3x the amount of Oil as Saudi Arabia... etc. Can anyone provide a link to some supporting documentation on that? I was under the impression that we didn't have nearly the oil reserves that the ME has. I thought that Alaska was our greatest reserve, but it even paled in comparison to most of the oil producing countries.

....that is incredibly annoying, I figured that saving as a draft would allow me to edit later, but it didn't for some reason....anyhow, continuing...

...Iran does not possess the long-range ballistic abilities to be labeled a real threat to America...the prospect of Iran attacking Israel, a country notorious for its dramatically disproportionate military responses to its neighbors, is not realistic... Besides, ability does not dictate necessity.

Secondly, on the point of the "overuse" of the term "Neo-Conservative." Agreed, the term is thrown around rather loosely, and yes, the term is the modern adaptation of a term used to identify group of political and economic scholars that were previously termed the Neo-Liberals, but, is there a better name to be used for this group of individuals? The "neo-conservatives" would tell us that there is no such thing as a neo-conservative...really though, the origin of the political ideology has its roots with Irving Kristol, father of "Neo-Conservative" chickenhawk William Kristol, who, at one point and time was an active Trotskyist, but became an adamant anti-communist... One must realize that "liberalism" as it is understood in its true political context is not the same as the implicit meaning it gains in modern American understanding, which is akin to "left-wing pinko communist." In reality, "liberal" as defined through "liberalism" identifies closest with strict individualism, but the modern intermpretation of liberal democracy places an undue importance on the individual's economic rights... Really, conservatives are more liberal than those that they decry as liberals in the derogatory sense....so coming around to the advent of the term Neo-Conservative, it serves as an easily enough understood term that sets the right-wing group, such as PNAC, the American Enterprise Institute, and many members of the Carlyle Group, and includes individuals such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Pearle, Robert Kagan, and formerly Francis Fukuyama, to name only a few, apart from the "liberals" (IE the 'leftwingers'.)

Democrats may hold congress, currently, but they hardly "run the country." Besides, what we are talking about here is not the domestic workings of the United States, we are discussing, as it relates to Iran, the Foreign Relations aspect, which power, sans the Foreign Relations Comittee which really has no decision making power, is mainly held by the Executive branch...

Thirdly, even in the 70s Iran was not a constant threat to America, lest you call a hostage situation a threat to the larger scale of national security....a hostage situation in which no on was hurt, everyone came home, and the hostages admitted that they were treated quite well... Many nations across the world have an Anti American sentiment, burn our flag and efigies and shout "death to America!" and are not considered realistic threats....just a bunch of hot air...

Fourth....actually, I am American...

Anyhow..... Back to the subject...Iran dropping the USD..... It is important because it could catalyze other nations that have oil to do the same.....and it will...

It's in oil shale form...soft rock essentially. I think Shell is leading the pack on extraction techniques, but here's something from the Department of Energy.

www.fossil.energy.gov...

And one more of interest: www.heartland.org...


I don't think the cost of gas will be nearly as impactive as the collapse of the dollar if other nations such as Russia follow suit.

Also, people keep throwing around the data that the US has 3x the amount of Oil as Saudi Arabia... etc. Can anyone provide a link to some supporting documentation on that? I was under the impression that we didn't have nearly the oil reserves that the ME has. I thought that Alaska was our greatest reserve, but it even paled in comparison to most of the oil producing countries.



[edit on 9-12-2007 by mhansen]

reply to post by mhansen


Thanks for the reply. I found this part humorous.

We have more oil shale in the U.S. than the Saudis have crude. The timing is right. U.S. ingenuity has given us the technology to make this economically viable,

US ingenuity, or the fact that a US lead war has driven the cost of Oil to record highs, making it economically viable?

I also remember hearing that the quality of shale oil, at least in parts of Canada, is of a lower grade and can't be used for as many functions as standard crude. I am curious about what our shale oil can be used for.

I have an honest question for those with a background in economics. We're all talking about the collapse of the dollar, but what would that mean, really in the long term? Certainly, fiat currency systems have what...a 100% historical failure rate, right? The U.S. alone has gone through several paper currencies (Continental, etc). Why couldn't we go back to a gold standard and "start fresh" so to speak, in the event of a collapse of the dollar? (Or maybe this is a prelude to the Amero)

I really don't know, so I'm asking those who do.


Thanks,
Mike

reply to post by mhansen


The main problem with gold is that it is heavy to carry and you risk getting your gold stolen if you are just walking around with it. It's also very hard to give exact change with gold. Very quickly a gold economy would start turning into a promissiary note system where you pay people to safeguard your gold. Then whenever you want to pay someone, you both have to go to the bank and physically give your gold to the other party. People will then start simply taking the certificates themself as payment. The bank already knows from history that not everyone is going to withdraw their gold all at once, so they will start lending out some of the "extra" gold. Now you have more gold in the economy than actually exists, and the terrible cycle starts all over again. It's also much easier to just print money than issue gold.

As for why we couldn't go back.... North Americans like convenience, and I can't see people trading in all of their money for big piles of gold. Well, maybe not big piles... the problem might actually be the opposite. Try accurately measuring out $5 from gold, when it's at nearly $800 an ounce. $5 in gold would be 1/5th of a gram or something ridiculous. Most digital scales can't measure in less than 1 g increments. Everyone would have to carry around super-accurate pocket scales of some kind. Any purchase under $100 you'd basically be paying with gold dust. With such small particles you're bound to lose a little here, a little there, every time you take it out. And god forbid you open your gold pouch on a windy day .

[edit on 12/9/2007 by Yarcofin]

Originally posted by Hallberg Rassy
The lynchpin in this is Russia. They are the worlds largest exporter of petroleum and if they move to settle in Eurodollars, then look out.

Actually, Russia wants to sell their Oil in rubels.

As for Iranian Oil export. Their share in Oil trade is not that big. But they are very important natural gas exporter.

Yes, I suppose you're right. If there's a way around a system, someone will find it. One more question if I may... Isn't inflation a direct result of an artificial increase in the money supply? So, if we were to say one dollar is worth 1/10000 of a gram of gold, and future gold mining technologies make it CHEAPER to mine gold to the point that our dollar is worth 1/5000 of a gram of gold, does the normal, natural cycle of an economy without Central Bank intervention eventually result in DEFLATION? Without Central Bank intervention, wouldn't the cost of living go down naturally on its own, therefore raising the standard of living? What's wrong with deflation, as long as it's a natural result of supply and demand, and not a result of a pullback of an artifically stimulated economy? I'm sure some of us remember paying $80 for the first VHS movies...now they're $10-$20. Sorry for trying to get an economics lesson here...hehehe



Sorry to get off-topic.

Mike

The main problem with gold is that it is heavy to carry and you risk getting your gold stolen if you are just walking around with it. It's also very hard to give exact change with gold. Very quickly a gold economy would start turning into a promissiary note system where you pay people to safeguard your gold. Then whenever you want to pay someone, you both have to go to the bank and physically give your gold to the other party. People will then start simply taking the certificates themself as payment. The bank already knows from history that not everyone is going to withdraw their gold all at once, so they will start lending out some of the "extra" gold. Now you have more gold in the economy than actually exists, and the terrible cycle starts all over again. It's also much easier to just print money than issue gold.

reply to post by Yarcofin


My scale can do tenths of a gram.

When Canada stops taking US Dollars for oil, then I'll be worried. Otherwise whooptie-doo.

Originally posted by Yarcofin
reply to post by mhansen

 

The main problem with gold is that it is heavy to carry and you risk getting your gold stolen if you are just walking around with it. It's also very hard to give exact change with gold. Very quickly a gold economy would start turning into a promissiary note system where you pay people to safeguard your gold. Then whenever you want to pay someone, you both have to go to the bank and physically give your gold to the other party. People will then start simply taking the certificates themself as payment. The bank already knows from history that not everyone is going to withdraw their gold all at once, so they will start lending out some of the "extra" gold. Now you have more gold in the economy than actually exists, and the terrible cycle starts all over again. It's also much easier to just print money than issue gold.

As for why we couldn't go back.... North Americans like convenience, and I can't see people trading in all of their money for big piles of gold. Well, maybe not big piles... the problem might actually be the opposite. Try accurately measuring out $5 from gold, when it's at nearly $800 an ounce. $5 in gold would be 1/5th of a gram or something ridiculous. Most digital scales can't measure in less than 1 g increments. Everyone would have to carry around super-accurate pocket scales of some kind. Any purchase under $100 you'd basically be paying with gold dust. With such small particles you're bound to lose a little here, a little there, every time you take it out. And god forbid you open your gold pouch on a windy day

.

[edit on 12/9/2007 by Yarcofin]

That is why the Constitution authorized only coinage to be issued. Coins have intrinsic value due to the metals in them. We really have come along way off if people can't remember pennies and dimes and quarters. Silver can be broken down into many denominations. That's why alot of the older money had silver in it. When you get too many, you change them in for gold. A quarter ounce of gold is a little smaller than a quarter and fetchs $200+ right now. So I think the paper argument is a paper tiger.

reply to post by menjo2000


The oil in Alaska is our strategic reserve. Saying we don't want to harm the environment is secondary. We can buy plenty of cheap oil right now, and when it runs out, we have enough for a little while here in the US. In the future, when it is too expensive to literally burn, there will still be oil to use in plastics and other products more useful than fuel.