PiedPiper (1188 posts)January 7, 2017 at 1:01 pm
Preparing for the collapse of the PetroDollar
Don’t know a thing about this source, but do believe that we are seeing the decline of the Petro-dollar and our ‘leaders’
inclination for hegemony at all costs will lead to even bloodier confrontations around the world before it’s put to rest.arendt, glinda, DJ13 and 4 othersMom Cat, Magical Thyme, Johnny Rash, Doremus Jessup like this
"..... Two faces; one for love and another for the DMV". -- Between The Two, by poet Kenji Liu
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
1 year ago #10
Magical Thyme (2847 posts) (Reply to original post) January 7, 2017 at 1:12 pm
1. he forgot to mention that Saddam Hussein attempted to get off the petrodollar
that is why we invaded Iraq. All other justifications were obvious lies.
Edited to add: I see…he gets to Iraq in part 3. left it out of just the overview up front.
Peacebird (848 posts) (Reply to Magical Thyme - post #1) January 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm
6. Exactly. We destroyed the middle east and now quite possibly Europe
all to protect the petrodollar. Hillarys Syria fiasco may well be our undoing.
Johnny Rash (1209 posts) (Reply to original post) January 7, 2017 at 1:37 pm
2. Thanks for posting…….I've been looking forward to its demise for some times.
I think the ongoing paradigm shift taken place right now will lead us into the 22nd Century, not the mighty PetroDollar, methink!
Mosby (249 posts) (Reply to Johnny Rash - post #2) January 7, 2017 at 1:44 pm
3. Yeah, I can't wait for the dollar to collapse
That will help the average American, right?
Just think about how much money our friends in Russia and Iran will make when gas is 10-25 dollars per gallon!
It’s a win, win!
PiedPiper (1188 posts) (Reply to Mosby - post #3) January 7, 2017 at 2:08 pm
4. No of course it won't be good for America but I think it's inevitable.
Not realistic to assume it can stay the way it is. China has already created a competing (gold backed) currency.
Others will follow and will work around the dollar.
"..... Two faces; one for love and another for the DMV". -- Between The Two, by poet Kenji Liu
Johnny Rash (1209 posts) (Reply to Mosby - post #3) January 7, 2017 at 2:45 pm
7. Thanks for LINKS!
OIL-Consumption-Decreases will be exacerbated by the removal of the Combustion Engine from our streets, our airports and oceans sometimes in this century……really not much of a future is there for Petro-Dollar, is there?
The sooner we all face that fact, the sooner we can move to the next chapter: Welcome to World Peace?
Just saying …
Rocco (649 posts) (Reply to Johnny Rash - post #7) January 7, 2017 at 6:27 pm
10. Speaking about the removal of combustion engine vehicles…
In the Netherlands, by 2025, you will not be able to purchase a new car that is combustion vehicle. They are going all out for electric vehicles. Even their railway already is using 75% of their energy from renewables. The Dutch seem to be planning for this, and to me they seem like very good planners.
Johnny Rash (1209 posts) (Reply to Rocco - post #10) January 8, 2017 at 5:59 am
11. My point exactly…….when a technology becomes obsolete, it is obsolete!
… and that’s regardless who utilizes the ‘technology’; failing to do so will only cause us more harm than good in the long run!!!
Thanks for the links, they both proves my point exactly …
FanBoy (7983 posts) (Reply to Mosby - post #3) January 8, 2017 at 1:57 pm
12. i don't have a high opinion of zero hedge — they're from capital and the right
though it’s not completely apparent
and a bunch of fear-mongers
leveymg (3828 posts) (Reply to original post) January 7, 2017 at 2:13 pm
Magical Thyme (2847 posts) (Reply to original post) January 7, 2017 at 3:18 pm
8. yay! got there.
now I’ve tried 3 different browsers. IE brought me to the newsletter and now is effing up my system. i give up. figures.
it emailed me a link. phew.
jdpriestly (5877 posts) (Reply to original post) January 7, 2017 at 3:57 pm
9. This is one view of history.
But, it was in great part the Viet Nam War that cost the US so much money (and lives) and led to the decline in the value of the dollar compared to gold.
Further, I believe but do not know precisely in what way the article’s version of the agreements between OPEC countries (and perhaps other countries) in the early 1970s is overly simplistic by far. I suspect but cannot say for sure that I think that the agreements, some formal, some just informal understandings, between Saudi Arabia and certain other countries, perhaps even China, and the US were far more expansive, covered a lot more territory than the article suggests. I am wary about saying that because I do not know. But the world changed so dramatically with the end of the War in Viet Nam which followed what is known as the first oil crisis.
Also, I would like to mention that Johnson’s Great Society was not the beginning of Social Security but was the beginning of Medicare. It had been for a long time the goal of liberals including Truman to establish some form of a single payer type of health care coverage in the US. Seniors are a bad risk for insurance companies. Many, perhaps most, can no longer work and have low incomes. Yet they are in the time of life when healthcare costs are for most people, at their highest. So it made sense to remove the cost of covering seniors from the insurance pool and require all working people to cover the cost of healthcare in the final years through a sort of tax. It reduced the cost of the coverage, placed the risks of costs on the government and simply dealt with a very serious problem in the most efficient, cost-effective way possible. That is why we have Medicare. It is not a give-away. It is the most efficient, cost-effective way to provide healthcare to seniors. It’s just nonsensical to try to cut it or do away with it.
I would also like to point out that prior to the Great Depression and the 1930s, actually beginning earlier, people moved from rural areas to towns and cities. We began as a country in which with the exception of slaves, hardworking people could easily buy and develop land. Families moved across the country settling in communities in which they built homes and farmed or served the needs of farmers. Then came the railroads making land development even easier for those willing to work. The end of slavery changed social relationships. Former slaves didn’t really have the opportunity to own much, but they became in a sort of strange sense a part of the labor market — not fairly compensated but they were not property. They were on their own with little if any property.
To pick up the thread of the role of the Great Depression again, it saw the migration, the movement of many, many people who formerly would have owned land that they could sell or rent for income at the end of their lives into cities where they were lucky to be able to own the shirts on their backs. Even if they owned a house, its value was probably not what the value of a house is in the cities we know today.
As a result of the decline in home and land ownership, FDR and subsequent presidents instituted programs that ameliorated home ownership. FHA, Fannie Mae and eventually Freddie Mac as well as VA loans are familiar programs that helped develop a bit of an “ownership society” as George W. Bush used to say. That “ownership society” idea pretty much crumbled under the weight of the increasingly disproportionately great wealth of the oligarchs (like Donald “Grump,” typo that I am leaving here on purpose). Today, we are rapidly becoming a society of impoverished renters.
So Medicare and Social Security are programs that sort of substitute in our society for the opportunity that we would all liked to have to save and provide for ourselves in our elder years. To be self-sufficient as we age in a society in which we own no or next to no real estate, no property that has much value is impossible without a program like Social Security that allows us to save not as individuals but as generations and uses what we are saving for our retirement to fund the retirements of those now too old to earn a meaningful living.
The article reads well, but in my opinion it does not accurately present the reality of our time in several key respects.
Petrodollars exist. But the social environment in our country and the world (I did not go there) in which petrodollars exist is one that needs agreement when it comes to value.
I would like to add one last comment to my rant.
I worked for an oil and gas company during 1973-74, the first oil crisis. I attended the First International Oil Conference in London in January 1974. One of the major concerns of the oil producing nations was their fear that the oil they were producing and selling for specific amounts was paid for in dollars that could lose value and indeed were losing value. They needed to have some kind of “insurance” (not really insurance but I can’t think of a better word) that the value for which they exchanged their oil would not lose buying power. The petrodollar was probably a part of the deal. BUT, and I think this is important, the petrodollar was not the whole deal I suspect but do not know. I think there were some other agreements made at the time. I don’t know what they were. They may have had to do with trade agreements of other kinds. But the concern was that inevitably regardless which currency oil, an exhaustible resource, is traded in, that currency can and most likely will, over time, lose value. And thus, the compensation that oil producing countries receive for their unrenewable asset, oil, will over time lose value. Many oil producing countries at least at that time, had very little to exchange other than their oil for money.
This is not a matter of America being a bad player. The problem of the petrodollar is innate in the natural of oil — that it is not a renewable resource. It is sold and used only once.
In fact, Saudi Arabia put a lot of trust in America and in our economy and in a vision of the world economy that was designed or to be designed to provide the Saudi people with security and the incentive to sell their irreplaceable resource.
I just think the article is a bit glib and judgmental. It disregards the fundamental problem with oil: it is a limited resource that, once consumed, is gone and produces no revenue beyond its original sale value.
I’m not an economist. It’s just that I was writing reports on the economy in 1973-74, specifically on the economy as it pertained to oil and gas. Don’t ask me for my details. That’s just the reality. I have led a very, very strange and amazing life. I feel blessed.No Truth! No Trust! Bernie or Bust!
jwirr (4130 posts) (Reply to jdpriestly - post #9) January 9, 2017 at 10:10 am
13. Yes, before the 1980s we were all beginning to understand that oil would
eventually disappear. But that was denied and once again the uninformed believed every word they were told. I have no idea how much oil is left and doubt if we can find an honest report but sooner or later things are going to have to change. What I am seeing now is that many are going towards electricity – but that to has its problems. One of these days we will start looking for the real answers.
jdpriestly (5877 posts) (Reply to jwirr - post #13) January 9, 2017 at 2:46 pm
15. Yes. The decline of oil production was already forecast in 1973-1974.
Now we are drilling under the ocean and also oil that is difficult to refine. It’s no wonder that solar is becoming more competitive. I’d love to switch. Oil is just plain dirty. Solar is clean energy.
I think that selling solar as clean — literally clean meaning clean air, clean streets (imagine no oil dripping on the streets) and safe (imagine no pipelines, no tankers, no accidents with flammable gasoline) — might be a good idea. It is cleaner than other sources of energy.
The problem is making safe batteries that are solar powered.No Truth! No Trust! Bernie or Bust!
westerebus (165 posts) (Reply to jdpriestly - post #9) January 9, 2017 at 1:44 pm