Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
ISIS

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 124, 125, 126  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tannin 

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Ballarat

PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwamp, re your last post: just so.
_________________
‘Let's eat Grandma.’ Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:49 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
Much of what happened in 2008 can be attributed to the $147/bbl spike in 2007 (as the 1991-93 recession related to the spike of 1990, the post-1998 boom to $10/bbl oil, etc). I don't think any other product has oil's volatility, or its ability to cause such ramifying economic damage - as shown by the fact that the rise of US shale has barely eased the price of oil below $100/bbl. That price stickiness is a result of the increasing cost of extraction from new sources, which makes the low-cost MidEast more critical, not less.

Again, let us clarify your claims.

The underlying inflation and inflation expectation which preceded the GFC were precipitated by the instability, uncertainty, and "peak oil" fears signalled by...yep, you guessed it, the lead up, farce, aftermath and 3T cost of the Iraq War.

Just the signal of war is enough to drive up oil prices independent of supply, potentially reversing your implicature that oil's importance justifies intervention. Like that worked a treat with the Iraq War.

Edit: Grr bad mobile connection!

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm


Last edited by pietillidie on Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:56 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:16 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

pietillidie wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
Much of what happened in 2008 can be attributed to the $147/bbl spike in 2007 (as the 1991-93 recession related to the spike of 1990, the post-1998 boom to $10/bbl oil, etc). I don't think any other product has oil's volatility, or its ability to cause such ramifying economic damage - as shown by the fact that the rise of US shale has barely eased the price of oil below $100/bbl. That price stickiness is a result of the increasing cost of extraction from new sources, which makes the low-cost MidEast more critical, not less.

Again, let us clarify your claims.

The underlying inflation and inflation expectation which preceded the GFC were precipitated by the instability, uncertainty, and "peak oil" fears signalled by...yep, you guessed it, the lead up, farce, aftermath and 3T cost of the Iraq War.

Just the signal of war is enough to drive up oil prices independent of supply, potentially reversing your implicature that oil's importance justifies intervention. Like that worked a treat with the Iraq War.

Edit: Grr bad mobile connection!


No way, sorry. The 2007 spike was driven by short- term traders reacting to the "commodity supercycle" (the investment fad of the day). That was an investment thesis driven by rampant Chinese growth and the false boom in the West. This surging demand was nudging up against a supply system that was constrained, because low oil prices of 1998-2003 had deterred investment in that period. Oil prices had started to recover in 2004, and investment lead times for significant developments are ca 7 years. So the traders jumped on the investment fad, and I hope and trust they were duly scalped.

In response to Lehman, the oil price plunged from $145 to $47 in a matter of weeks, then levelled back to ca $100 (roughly the marginal cost of new barrels coming on stream) within a year.

The Iraq War had no material effect on world daily oil production as Iraq had been under fairly-well enforced UN sanctions. The ill-conceived Iraq War was a major cause of many of the issues we now face, but this surely wasn't one of them. It was a trading crisis, not a war shock.

As I said, we have no right to go to war to wrest away control of oil reserves from sovereign nations that now hold them - but I do think it's pretty plain that IS should not gain strength through genocidal violence and sectarianism to threaten the world's economic blood supply and gorge on that resource base. Whether IS could do that is a matter I am content to leave to EU and US intelligence agencies, who have the resources to examine it.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
pietillidie wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
Much of what happened in 2008 can be attributed to the $147/bbl spike in 2007 (as the 1991-93 recession related to the spike of 1990, the post-1998 boom to $10/bbl oil, etc). I don't think any other product has oil's volatility, or its ability to cause such ramifying economic damage - as shown by the fact that the rise of US shale has barely eased the price of oil below $100/bbl. That price stickiness is a result of the increasing cost of extraction from new sources, which makes the low-cost MidEast more critical, not less.

Again, let us clarify your claims.

The underlying inflation and inflation expectation which preceded the GFC were precipitated by the instability, uncertainty, and "peak oil" fears signalled by...yep, you guessed it, the lead up, farce, aftermath and 3T cost of the Iraq War.

Just the signal of war is enough to drive up oil prices independent of supply, potentially reversing your implicature that oil's importance justifies intervention. Like that worked a treat with the Iraq War.

Edit: Grr bad mobile connection!


No way, sorry. The 2007 spike was driven by short- term traders reacting to the "commodity supercycle" (the investment fad of the day). That was an investment thesis driven by rampant Chinese growth and the false boom in the West. This surging demand was nudging up against a supply system that was constrained, because low oil prices of 1998-2003 had deterred investment in that period. Oil prices had started to recover in 2004, and investment lead times for significant developments are ca 7 years. So the traders jumped on the investment fad, and I hope and trust they were duly scalped.

In response to Lehman, the oil price plunged from $145 to $47 in a matter of weeks, then levelled back to ca $100 (roughly the marginal cost of new barrels coming on stream) within a year.

The Iraq War had no material effect on world daily oil production as Iraq had been under fairly-well enforced UN sanctions. The ill-conceived Iraq War was a major cause of many of the issues we now face, but this surely wasn't one of them. It was a trading crisis, not a war shock.

As I said, we have no right to go to war to wrest away control of oil reserves from sovereign nations that now hold them - but I do think it's pretty plain that IS should not gain strength through genocidal violence and sectarianism to threaten the world's economic blood supply and gorge on that resource base. Whether IS could do that is a matter I am content to leave to EU and US intelligence agencies, who have the resources to examine it.

Please, Mugster, pass that weed around!

Oil prices spiked with the Iraq War *despite* claims it would unlock massively greater production.

Of course Chinese growth and world demand, and then *obviously* later Lehmann, an extension of the *very same* initial oil price increases and subsequent Iraq War driven debt fears, drove prices up further.

Fox News is about the only entity which claims to this day the Iraq War didn't precipitate a lot of the economics, including the demonstrable increase in oil prices prior to Lehmann and *regardless* of what was by then a consistent and heavily priced in China story, that followed.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:31 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ you don't need the weed, you're incorrigible to reason already ! Wink

Where I can agree with you is that Iraq War II had a part to play in the 2008 comeuppance ; it was not through oil prices, but through the gross fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Government's decision to wage war without raising the taxes to pay for it. Like any massive fiscal stimulus, this rushed the US economy's adrenaline system, dilated the financial arteries, and left it ready for the cardiac arrest that the oil spike of 2007 brought on. It also limited Obama's room for fiscal manoeuvre.... but the oil spike wasn't caused by Iraq.

We would also agree, I suspect, that a flawed Neo-Con premise of the Second Iraq War was that the war would be self-financing, through lower oil prices. That credulous idea underlay the fiscal wish-fulfilment referred to above.

If, as I suspect, you're in England and around London or Oxford at the moment, let me know, and I'll buy you a warn English beer or two and you can try to set me straight ! Cheers

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:59 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
^ you don't need the weed, you're incorrigible to reason already ! Wink

Where I can agree with you is that Iraq War II had a part to play in the 2008 comeuppance ; it was not through oil prices, but through the gross fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Government's decision to wage war without raising the taxes to pay for it. Like any massive fiscal stimulus, this rushed the US economy's adrenaline system, dilated the financial arteries, and left it ready for the cardiac arrest that the oil spike of 2007 brought on. It also limited Obama's room for fiscal manoeuvre.... but the oil spike wasn't caused by Iraq.

We would also agree, I suspect, that a flawed Neo-Con premise of the Second Iraq War was that the war would be self-financing, through lower oil prices. That credulous idea underlay the fiscal wish-fulfilment referred to above.

If, as I suspect, you're in England and around London or Oxford at the moment, let me know, and I'll buy you a warn English beer or two and you can try to set me straight ! Cheers

Where we differ is that you're talking about the post-Lehmann oil spike; and I'm talking about the price rise over the period of the Iraq War. I shouldn't have used the word "spike" (though it was called a spike at the time, BTW) because the war is actually a long story, thus so was the rise over the war. The 3T Iraq War spending/inflation/debt (all the exactly the same thing), then blew the lid off as you say.

But Iraq is central to the story no matter which way you look at it and thus will it be again, which is my main expectation here.

From what I can tell, two things people regularly underestimate when it comes to oil are: (1) its proxy value as both a leading indicator and therefore powerful market signal (people tend to focus on the literal input cost effect, which lags expectations, though complicated by hedging and priced-in future expectations, I understand); and (2) the sheer size and power of its main peddlers, which as energy companies (not simply dealing in oil) have massive political influence, and indeed are in the business of political influence as natural resources are significantly non-competitive commodities (save for substitution effects, themselves well covered by the very same companies).

The natural resource business is very little about making something, and very much about slimy dealings and contracts with governments (hence the unsavoury thugs which keep interfering in Australian politics).

Yes, on the beer, for sure. Let me find a damned apartment first, though. It's a bloody nightmare finding anything decent here without breaking the budget!

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

pietillidie wrote:
The natural resource business is very little about making something, and very much about slimy dealings and contracts with governments (hence the unsavoury thugs which keep interfering in Australian politics).

A timely trivial local example of how it really works; scale up these sorts of incestuous dealings several factors of ten: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/afl-lobbies-state-government-over-bosses-private-company-20140916-10hmzn.html

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 6:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Great, just as I arrive!

UK Gov wrote:
The threat to the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) from international terrorism is severe.

https://www.gov.uk/terrorism-national-emergency/terrorism-threat-levels

Well, I guess did see out Kim Jong-il, despite publically questioning the veracity of his golf score, so fingers crossed on this one!

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
1061 



Joined: 06 Sep 2013


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Considering this is a thread about both Isis and Ebola, what if Isis somehow manage get into the infected areas and get infected people out and into western countries.

Is this something to be feared or is my imagination running wild?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Rose with a violent heart


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: où surréal côtoie

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, they're not exactly next door to each other, for one... Shocked
_________________
"O rire sous le couteau
Roses au cœur violet"
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
think positive wrote:
Read this and tell me your ok with doing nothing.

We are all people, we all matter.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/field-worker-on-the-ebola-outbreak/


Yep we are. I'm not advocating doing nothing, I'm suggesting that maybe sending more and more people into a zone where :
1. This virus is killing people
2. They have no way to stop it killing people. People will die or not regardless of whether other people go in
3. The more people go in and out, the wider it spreads

Is maybe not the smartest way to deal with it. Sometimes you have to fold and accept the losses rather than continue to raise and lose more.

What is the option that will result in the minimum number of lives lost? I support that.


That's fair enough. I put on the first page at least do some drops of medical supplies and protective gear etc, that's not putting lives at risk, as long as the don't fly Malaysia Air.

_________________
You never look good trying to make someone else look bad. Disrespecting & insulting other to prove your point just shows how shaky your own position is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
1061 



Joined: 06 Sep 2013


PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Well, they're not exactly next door to each other, for one... Shocked


I'm not thinking they would invade or anything so obvious, just say a little graft and corruption to get a few ISIS people into the infected areas to throw a little cash around to get objective done.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Rose with a violent heart


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: où surréal côtoie

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I think if they wanted chemical weapons they'd have plenty back in Syria. Just ask Assad! Sad
_________________
"O rire sous le couteau
Roses au cœur violet"
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie 

dum nei, sakte ja


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 8:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

1061 wrote:
David wrote:
Well, they're not exactly next door to each other, for one... Shocked


I'm not thinking they would invade or anything so obvious, just say a little graft and corruption to get a few ISIS people into the infected areas to throw a little cash around to get objective done.


Actually not that hard to do, and potentially fairly scary outcome. A human biological weapon.

Put someone with Ebola on a new york subway for example, it could be very nasty in the right (wrong?) circumstances.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Rose with a violent heart


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: où surréal côtoie

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:08 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

IS may be ambitious, but I think you guys are greatly overestimating their capabilities. And nobody has explained how a small group based in Iraq and Syria is supposed to casually waltz over 8000 km and a dozen borders, "get" (??) a West African virus, and transport it back for ... what purpose exactly? To accidentally infect themselves and everyone around them!? Shocked

I blame Hollywood.

_________________
"O rire sous le couteau
Roses au cœur violet"
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 124, 125, 126  Next
Page 3 of 126   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group