That’s because there’s no such word. I think Fox meant to say “usurping”. Either that or “Slurpee” - I’m not sure which. :mrgreen:
shouldn’t maoman purge this thread and get it back on track? isn’t that a moderator’s job? 90 percent of this is just childish drivel and off the topic.
wolf_reinhold
Today’s the 25th - an odd-numbered day - so it’s up to Alien. Except that it’s also a lunar calendar holiday in some Daoist temples close to Banqiao, in which case this obviously wouldn’t apply. This means it’s up to Gus to get this thread back on track, but he’s tidying up his MBA thesis in Chicago, so so much for that idea…
I’m guessing this thread is doomed to wander in the cyber-hallways of irrelevance for all eternity. :shock:
I think the lack of intelligent posts about this topic has to do with the poor understanding many on this thread – the original poster included – have about economics, the markets, etc. And I’m still waiting for a response to the arguments I have already made.
Also, I have another question for the original poster: If the goal of the US administration is to get US$9 a barrel oil, just how long do you think such low prices would last? The oil market runs in cycles; at US$9 a barrel, the cost of new exploration would be prohibitive, eventually leading to curtailed production and rising prices. This is the nature of the market: low prices and little exploration followed by higher prices, more exploration and increased production.
So the benefits of an Iraqi invasion – cheaper oil through increased production, as claimed by the original poster – would be short lived. And with higher prices today, we’re likely to see higher production anyway – with or without Iraq’s oil on the market – because US$30 a barrel provides more than enough incentive for increased exploration.
Furthermore, were Bush’s true goal lower oil prices, I imagine he would be upsetting a lot of his friends in Texas right now. This is because they benefit from higher prices, which help to make them more competitive with the Middle East. The cost of extracting oil for US domestic producers is much higher than their Middle Eastern counterparts. They’re very happy that oil is US$30 a barrel right now, so I imagine they’ll be upset if Bush carries out his threat to invade.
And that’s just the thing: Bush’s friends benefit from the THREAT to invade – which causes a war premium – but not actual invasion itself, because the premium will go away once it becomes clear what the US intends to do about Iraq.
Saying Bush wants to invade Iraq to increase oil supply, lower prices and boost the economy simply doesn’t make any sense.
A. Prices would fall anyway if Bush simply called of the invasion (the war premium disappears); a US$5 to US$10 drop in the price of oil would be more than enough to boost the US economy.
B. The increased supply from Iraq wouldn’t be enough to signficantly lower prices (or at least, not to US$9 as originally claimed);
C. Even if I grant the argument that US$9 a barrel oil is possible, prices wouldn’t stay low for long, because new exploration would be curtailed.
D. Bush benefits more from keeping the oil markets in doubt about whether the US will invade – maintaining the war premium – rather than carrying out the concrete action of invasion, which would cause the premium to shrink or disappear, as was the case in 1990-1991.
I believe that’s what my Latin teacher called a non sequitor. Then again I (we?) lack intelligence! 
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiii Texas,
I’m back here in the Language Exchange archives nursing my tosh, but I’d still like to respond to you posts. Sorry I was a little busy yesterday.
Firstly, and this is what I have gathered from reading the papers, the US policy goal is to break the cartel power of OPEC. It sees Iraq as being vulnerable to attack and having huge oil reserves. It is true whilst you say that Iraqi oil alone would not provide enough supply to reduce oil prices to 9 dollars a barrel. However, cartels function by price fixing. There is a game invented by none other then the Nobel prize winning John Nash of a “Beatiful Mind” fame that points out what happens under such circumstances. It is called ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. Not unlike the stiuation I found myself in yesterday at the hands of Soddom.
The point of this game is that there is an inherent lack of trust in all cartels, one only has to start pumping more oil whilst the others aren’t looking and a premium falls to you. It is ultimately unsustainable and shorlty everyone is pumping as much oil as they can and that’s how the price gets to 9 dollars.
To answer your other questions, I don’t think it is anybody’s intention to have the price of oil this low, but the power to control the cartel is likely fairly tempting strategically.
I think you are right about the war premium and the Bush’s short term goals of getting the price up whilst they are in power, but I think that would be a hard sell to the likes of Colin Powel, Tony Blair and so on.
I also read an interesting article about the diverting of attention away from Dick Cheney, that wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Clinton did it to great effect.
“Nursing your tosh?”
“tush”… surely?
Errr…
You know where to go.
I asked an old friend of mine who has been in the oil business for the last 22 years if he thought prices would go up or down should the US attack Iraq and what about the possibility of US$100/barrel oil. His reply:
I looked into my tea leaves and they said:
Splendid stuff. And as always the quality of the slagging match attendant upon this sort of topic is first class. Perhaps the problem is that we’ve (yawn) seen it all before and oh well I can’t be bothered to finish this sent