Coups arranged or backed by the U.S.A

[Huck]

I think Huck has conducted himself civilly in presenting an argument and is thus a pleasure to debate.

Huck is obviously intelligent but - unless I'm wrong Huck, and if I am I will most graciously apologize - appears not to be well versed in economics and finance (and I lectured in finance ITN, but close enough and thanks for the props!) which is fine, since God know's I am not well versed about most things in life. But because of that, Huck seems to have made a common mistake we all make - being swayed by a seductive argument about a cool subject that could possibly be an explanation, while referencing intelligent sounding and important looking sources. That's not a jab against Huck, as he appears to be sincerely interested in learning about the subject and thus should be commended. However, one must understand the underlying subject matter before being able to adjudge what is a legitimate argument and one put forth by charlatans and the uninformed (Huck's sources, not Huck).

Invading the Middle East because of trading oil in euros is not only not a subject of concern within the energy industry, the capital markets nor the investment community, its not even an issue of discussion. I have literally read hundreds of documents, partook in hundreds of phone calls and meetings from and with analysts, oil executives including CEOs, investors and even an energy minister, and this has never come up once. Not once.

Thanks for the very polite approach toro, i assure you the feelings are mutual. Again, i dont want to be pesky, but trying to shake my credibility on the subject with the only argument that you never heard anyone talk about it is just not enough . in any case, i can assure that i hear about it very often.

This being said, it is true that i am no expert in economics, but i can still wonder why so many people believe that the euro may be an issue; surely im not alone. Please read the article i posted above and tell me why it is simply seductive and does not stand.

with all do respect, I can remind you that although you were so convinced, corporations did have a charter that obliges them to do all they can for the shareholders. Im sure you ahve great experience, but no one is infaible..

thanks toro, again it is a pleasure to discuss this...

 

[Jay]

I think Huck has conducted himself civilly in presenting an argument and is thus a pleasure to debate.

Huck is obviously intelligent but - unless I'm wrong Huck, and if I am I will most graciously apologize - appears not to be well versed in economics and finance (and I lectured in finance ITN, but close enough and thanks for the props!) which is fine, since God knows I am not well versed about most things in life. But because of that, Huck seems to have made a common mistake we all make - being swayed by a seductive argument about a cool subject that could possibly be an explanation, while referencing intelligent sounding and important looking sources. That's not a jab against Huck, as he appears to be sincerely interested in learning about the subject and thus should be commended. However, one must understand the underlying subject matter before being able to adjudge what is a legitimate argument and one put forth by charlatans and the uninformed (Huck's sources, not Huck).

Was I too hard on Huck? Sorry Huck.....I just....and then, oh well.

 

[Huck]

no worries jay, we are all here for fun anyways

 

[Huck]

Hello again,

here is a series of 6 very interresting articles. i did not read them all and i dont know if it supports any theory of either side. but for sure, it seems very interresting...


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/trade-war.html

 

[Toro]

Huck

The question you must ask is who are you hearing it from? Are they experts in their fields? And are you in a position to know? The fact that lots of people you know are talking about it isn't particularly relevent if the talk is by people who wouldn't know the difference between a lending facility and a men's facility.

As for the article, there are lots of economic doomsday scenarios. Some of the points are quite valid. However, the conclusion is not.

Again, the reason why the hypothesis is nonsensical are as follows. Even though oil is an important commodity, the trading oil is a small fraction of total capital flows. Second, the costs to invade are enormous and far, far outweigh the small fractional benefit that accrues to the US dollar. Third, over 90% of all capital flows are within the OECD, China and India. Capital flows from Iran, Iraq and Venezuela by my guess account for less than 1% of total flows, and even if it did spread to everyone outside of the OECD plus India and China, it wouldn't account for more than 3-4% anyways. What matters is what happens in Tokyo and London and Shanghai and Frankfurt, not Caracas, Tehran and Baghdad. Fourth, if it were all about maintaining dollar hegemony, the Fed wouldn't have cut rates to 1% and Bush would not have run up a huge deficit. The government could have easily maintained the value of the dollar by not doing those two things. And finally, oil is already transacted in other currencies.

 

[darkbeaver]

The characteristic feature of this thinking is an overemphasis on the economic importance of oil. The vast majority of US-dollar denominated assets are held in Europe and (East) Asia

ITN your aguement is flawed, while oil may account for 4% of the economic activity none of the rest of the economy will run without it.
It is estimated that in the western world 92% of all human activity of any kind depends on oil. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OVEREMPHASIS THE IMPORTANCE OF OIL. Such a patently false statement coming from someone of your obvious smarts could be considered misleading if not decietful.

America would go to war over oil.

America wouldn't go to war over oil being traded in euros.

Big difference.

America is already at war over trade over oil, war seems to be the defining characteristic of the nation, you live by the sword.

 

[darkbeaver]

The characteristic feature of this thinking is an overemphasis on the economic importance of oil. The vast majority of US-dollar denominated assets are held in Europe and (East) Asia

ITN your aguement is flawed, while oil may account for 4% of the economic activity none of the rest of the economy will run without it.
It is estimated that in the western world 92% of all human activity of any kind depends on oil. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO OVEREMPHASIS THE IMPORTANCE OF OIL. Such a patently false statement coming from someone of your obvious smarts could be considered misleading if not decietful.

America would go to war over oil.

America wouldn't go to war over oil being traded in euros.

Big difference.

America is already at war over trade in oil, war seems to be the defining characteristic of the nation, you live by the sword.

 

[Huck]

Thanks toro,


The thing that troubles me is why would your opinion outweight other expert's opinion? You, like everyone have been wrong before. All we have is a plentitude of personal interprretation of numbers and estimates as to the future consequences. The only way for us to really know is to either build detailed models, or wait and see. as for the people i know who talk about it, trust me that just like you, they discuss with CEO's, investors, banks and follow economics bulletins...

Nevertheless, your arguments do make sense and require analysis. So now i have two different visions, both with their solutions and consequences.

Ive already resolved myself to the fact that this problem will not be resolved, it is much too complex for us to understand (for me perhaps, but i'm not convinced anyone has the absolute truth). We probably possess pieces of the grand puzzle, no one really getting the who;e picture. But, i want to assure you i consider your position, it has improved and changed my view of the problem. I certainly hope yours will have changed to, and will consider the alternate possibilities when confronted with the oil/euro problem again, although i know you value your position and wont completely change your mind. nothing is black or white, but considering other possibilities is better than begin sure of only one...

It was an honnor, cheers!

 

[I think not]

OK, so back on topic then? :?:

 

[Huck]

OK, so back on topic then? :?:

sure, which one? coups of the USA?

 

[I think not]

Ya, that works.

 

[Toro]

The thing that troubles me is why would your opinion outweight other expert's opinion? You, like everyone have been wrong before.

I am not an expert on geo-politics, though, like everyone, I have an opinion. However, I have knowledge about how capital markets work and how economics effects capital markets. I understand what effects capital flows and the behavior of market participants well enough that I have been able to carve out a fairly comfortable career over the past decade or so (which may end soon if I don't stay off these bloody forums!) I have to. Its my livelihood. Also, I can do math.

And yes, I do get it wrong. And when I'm wrong it costs me money. I'm wrong too damn often IMO! If only I were wrong less.

 

[Huck]

Just one last thing: Toro, could you send me links to sources you use so i can read on the topic on my own please? or perhaps do you have books or other useful sources where i could validate the numbers.
thanks

as for the coups of the USA, in the end there is not that much to say. As i said before, we do stand in a tough world where its survival of the fittest. In this view, any country defending its advantages has the right to, no matter how they do it.

A lot of psychological research has already show that each one of us, dependeding on the education we recieve or stuff we are intellectually 'fed' could become a saint or a killer. So its in us, wether we like it or not.
.
On this first level, the USA are ultimately doing nothing wrong. we do it too when we kick out the homeless from our doorsteps..

On a second level, we can consider the disrespect of other human beings as a fellony, and immoral act. If we go on this venu, then what to say more than we know that the US have encouraged wrong doing and are in fault. What is done is done, but the future should be changed and americans should, for the well being of the world, prevent this from happening.

The first for this is to recognize that there is a problem in history, and out of what is currently being done. One this is ackoledged by everyone, then things can change.

but, ultimately, it wont...

 

[Jay]

A lot of psychological research has already show that each one of us, dependeding on the education we recieve or stuff we are intellectually 'fed' could become a saint or a killer. So its in us, wether we like it or not.

Clearly, I went the "Saint" road...

 

[I think not]

Huck

Here's my take on it, in short.

From a moral and philosophical point of view, 9 out of 10 wars in this century the US has been dead wrong and has been hypocritical. It is responsible for killing millions of people.

OK, landing gear down, time for some reality. We live in a complex world, simple solutions like, the US did it, it's George Bush's fault blah blah, doesn't wash.

The United States (like every other country on the planet, in this century and in past centuries and in the foreseeable future) has but one objective, to serve it's interests. The US has the world's largest economy and largest military. It can project it's military anywhere in the world within 24 hours or thereabouts.

The installation of dictatorships served but one purpose and one purpose only, the prevention of communist expansion, because it serves the interests of the US for communism to come to a halt. Or if you wish, the newly revised fringe socialism.

People speak of the US and world domination because their memories either don't serve them well or they just believe Socialism is paradise on earth. Either way, they fail to examine there is always a flip side to everything. They will decry a tin-pot dictatorship installed by the US and in the same breath will tell you the people wanted the "democratically" elected government to stay put. A "democratically" elected government that started leaning way too left for comfort.

They will also tell you the US should lift the embargo on Cuba while ignoring the irony that they vehemently oppose (Evil corporate America), well if that isn't the peak of hypocrisy I don't know what is. Socialism serves the few, so does capitalism, the difference here lies that with capitalism you can obtain progress, slow progress, but it's there. Socialism by contrast in my opinion turns people into lazy paranoid unproductive automatons stripped of individuality replaced by social imaginary constructs.

I have yet to see any country in history that has made Socialism work, not even by a long shot, that tells me something. It tells me that socialism in not innate in human beings. Some will run to point at Sweden and China, but they forget that Sweden has a mixed economy (more towards Socialism) and is currently making changes in their economics because they simply cannot sustain this utopia any longer. China has relaxed their markets, otherwise they would have fallen into oblivion long ago, they had no choice.

So in conclusion, if you want to debate the morality of everything, it will be very short, I agree with everything. If you want to debate the realities of the world, here I am.

:!: EDIT: I've always believed a moderation of Socialism and Capitalism could work in the best interests of everyone, the poor, the middle class and yes even the wealthy. If we can provide basic services for everyone, like education (which I personally consider the cornerstone of everything), health and so on, limit rampant capitalism by enforcing strict rules and regulations, I believe humanity will find it's way.

I am, by my nature, very optimistic of the future, somewhere, somehow people will find their way, I have no faith or trust in governments anywhere, I only believe in the human spirit and the innate instinct of the betterment of one's self.

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: Coups arranged or bac

ITN,

Let me ask you, exactly who is the US to decide if another nation is "too far left"?

For your critisims of socialism, you fail to mention how capitalism breeds paranoia, over competitiveness, greed, creates the "disposalbe carbon based lifeform" mentality, and like a cancer will run unchecked until it destroys its own sources of sustinance (and dies).

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Coups arranged or bac

ITN,

Let me ask you, exactly who is the US to decide if another nation is "too far left"?

When someone stays in power and gets over 99% of the votes OR starts stealing private property (Robin Hood style expanded), that's when action should be taken. And I have already answered your direct question.

For your critisims of socialism, you fail to mention how capitalism breeds paranoia, over competitiveness, greed

Drops in the bucket compared to what Socialism creates.

creates the "disposalbe carbon based lifeform" mentality

Socialism of its application has done the same, your point is moot.

and like a cancer will run unchecked until it destroys its own sources of sustinance (and dies).

Socialism does the same, it requires resources as much as capitalism does.

 

[the caracal kid]

RE: Coups arranged or bac

and you get my point then.....

socialism and capitalism are equally defective ideologies.

it doesn't matter how somebody is getting votes if it is not your country. Should the opposite also be done? When a person wins by a very marginal majority (and the voting is questioned), should an outside country step in and implant a new leader? How would the US have liked that with GWB? Or is it a case where it is only justified when it is being done to somebody else?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Coups arranged or bac

and you get my point then.....

socialism and capitalism are equally defective ideologies.

Of course they are

it doesn't matter how somebody is getting votes if it is not your country. Should the opposite also be done? When a person wins by a very marginal majority (and the voting is questioned), should an outside country step in and implant a new leader? How would the US have liked that with GWB? Or is it a case where it is only justified when it is being done to somebody else?

You're debating morality caracal, I've already commented on that.

 

[jimmoyer]

Caracal kid, apparently you don't see the United States take over Paris or Berlin or even Ankara when a country
disagrees with us.

And if we really meant it, really followed through, Castro would have been long gone.

I happen to think as smart strategy, we should embrace Chavez and offer assistance knowing he too is a snake, posing as A MAN OF THE PEOPLE, with all the warning signs of the Cult of Personality.

I think you are as guilty of missing some distinctions as these as you think Americans miss the ideas you mention.

In addition, there's something primal at play when
a little guy keeps poking a stick at a big guy and then
cries foul when the big guy reacts. To me, this is
stupidity and childish and primal to all parties.

You've seen this crap in grade school all around the world.

And neither socialism or capitalism are defective as our arguments seem to indicate, but in reality we are truly arguing over the correct mix of the two.

And this carbon-based economy whether it be some mix of socialism or capitalism will not always be the status quo as we human beings continue to explore and discover and invent.

I'm sick of the division that make all these arguments so stale, everyone repeating the zeitgeist in their head like a metronome.