Tom, It would be positive, if the oil was an US asset, but it is not. Money is an instrument, at the end secured by the assets of the country of origin. A higher oil price does mean that US have to pay more, but other currencies move higher against the dollar. The Euro have strengthen from around 0.89 to over 1.20, which means that US assets have lowered its value and are cheaper to buy. US assets are moving at a lower value and it is a current reversal of the international strengths that US built, when the dollar had a high value and they bought up a lot of international assets.
Yes, US can cause a lot of havoc, but do not have neither the military nor the financial strength to maintain a long term occupation and a US empire. This means that it is expensive fireworks, not a solid long term business. The corporations are stateless, in fact the large ones are today comparable to a nation. The corporations are gaining, not the American people, who are getting poorer. Hakan At 10:57 13/03/2006, you wrote: >Hi Hakan, > >Can you explain how the dollar debt is effected >negatively by higher oil prices? If the value of >the dollar is pegged to the price of oil doesn´t >a doubling in the price of oil halve the >effective dollar debt? I imagine that the >treasury is working overtime to print up all >those hundred dollar bills so the rest of the world can buy oil. > >I also imagine that you can cordone off Iran´s >southern oil fields with a long term radioactive >kill zone. I wonder what Iran´s air strength is? > >Tom > > > >---------- >From: Hakan Falk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:22:40 -0300 >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Logic out the window at the White House > > >Hi Tom, > >The dollar debt is effected negatively by higher >oil prices. However, the only real support that >the dollar have today, is that it is the oil >trading currency. If oil would be traded in Euro, >the dollar would lose its base and US economy >would be in severe trouble. That is why an oil >bourse with oil traded in Euro, is worse than any physical attacks and war. > >An attack on Iran is many times more dangerous >than the Iraq venture. Iran is far more capable >and motivated, than Iraq ever was. Iraq would be >the first situation to explode, when the Shiites >would directly attack. The US presence in Iraq >and a popular armed resistance, will not be >possible to "shock and awe" with terror bombings, >as was possible in the previous Iraq war. Iraq >will again be the battle field and US will face >both an uprising and troops from Iran. US will >again resort to terror bombing, both within Iraq >and in Iran. It will under no circumstances be a short war. > >If US thought that they had some major incident >in other Arab countries. It will be nothing, >compared with the guerilla attacks that will >follow in all Arab countries. If you then >consider the lack of oil deliveries, that all >developed countries will suffer, it will be >difficult for US to wage a war. A very large part >of the military would be locked up in securing >deliveries of the scarce oil resources that they >could get their hands on, only to maintain the >war effort. The whole world will be hit by an >economic depression and US will never be able to recover its current standing. > >I really hope that Bush is capable to some >logical reasoning and common sense, but I am not >overly optimistic. This time he cannot even hope >for a token support from the international >community, which probably will turn against him instead. > >Hakan > > >At 23:20 12/03/2006, you wrote: > >Hi Keith and All, > > > >There is little doubt that the U.S. will hit > >Iran. That oil bourse is supposed to open in a > >week or two. The only open question is will the > >U.S. hit before or after it opens. I also think > >that the U.S. will use nukes albiet low yield > >ones. Their detonation underground will cause > >but a small nuclear signature and given the > >target is allegedly a nuclear facility I imagine > >and radioactive spillover will be blamed on the > >facility. I foresee cruise missiles raining on > >Iraq´s air force, followed by U.S. air attacks > >and no fly zones. We´ll steal the oil rich zone > >adjacent to Iraq for ¨security ¨reasons and give > >it to the Brits. The folks in Washington don´t > >care how high oil prices go. Remember that > >they´re all oil folks. Higher prices equate to > >greater profit for the companies. Also higher > >oil prices make dollar debt disappear. > > > >Tom > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > >From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >Sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 07:42:58 -0300 > >Subject: [Biofuel] Logic out the window at the White House > > > >"U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was calmly > >proposing an illegal attack on a sovereign state, possibly involving > >nuclear weapons." _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
