Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
About resource wars, believe me: Russia, France and Germany will be on the same side forever and ever.
Russia has gas, Germany has coal and France has nuke plants. They hold Europe in their hands.
They also signed an agreement last year.
The United States of Europe? Or will Russia and the rest of the CIS join the EU, EC or whatever they're calling it nowadays. Then the Russians will really sell all their oil in EUR.
Besides, some of the European countries *did* make noises about wanting to setup some kinda defence arrangement separate from NATO. Which got USA all spooked up.
TripleGemini - I think you're mistaken: canaries in numerous locations are reeling, and some are now dying.
The use of canaries in UK coalmines is no legend but straight history: they were the only forewarning the miners had of what was called 'Firedamp,' which we know as methane gas.
Your previous post Monte about the US topping its reserves off has come to pass - Bush now announcing that he wants the US strategic reserves full by '05
Your previous post Monte about the US topping its reserves off has come to pass - Bush now announcing that he wants the US strategic reserves full by '05
-G
I have studied this at great length. If it wasn't September, I could swear I can hear the Guns of August. Interesting times, my friend.
Monte _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Regardless of what you think of the institution - I know a lot of people would rather see the end of it - it seems to me that without some independent and bipartisan body to bring attention to matters of international law, the global political environment becomes something like a lawless jungle. I think this must happen as we head down the road of ever-decreasing availability of energy.
I am of the school of thought that imagines that charity and compassion are children of surplus, and that these would be the early casualties of a continuing decline of available energy.
Soon to follow, presumably, would be the protections and safeguards put in place to protect ordinary citizens, whether they be constitutional rights put in place to protect individuals, or global statutes to protect sovereign states. The intention and charter of the UN is obviously related to this class of constructs.
Thus, I think the U.N. is probably a canary worth watching. As suggested above, constitutional rights might well be considered another canary. Oh, hang on, they're looking pretty sick already. Cough cough.
Other things worth considering may be total charitable donations (anybody got figures on this?) or maybe attitudes toward minorities.
Soon to follow, presumably, would be the protections and safeguards put in place to protect ordinary citizens, whether they be constitutional rights put in place to protect individuals, or global statutes to protect sovereign states. The intention and charter of the UN is obviously related to this class of constructs.
Sorry to bust your bubble, Soft.
An except from my book:
Quote:
Article 4 of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” The reason this is important is that, if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. When governments claim to derive their authority from any source other than the governed, it always leads to the destruction of liberty and tyranny.
Quote:
It should be understood that the UN’s founders were not decent, principled men like those who won our national independence and created our constitutional republic. The architects of the UN were men who advocated “peace” through world tyranny. Alger Hiss was an undercover agent for the Soviets, and was the man who personally delivered the UN Charter draft to the founding meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco, and he became the first Secretary General. Hiss left the government in 1946 to become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a foundation which under his leadership became a leading supporter of the U.N. He was serving in that capacity when before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1948, Whittaker Chambers first made his public charges that Hiss was a secret communist. Chambers produced a number of copies of State Department documents and said they were given to him by Hiss for transmission to the Soviet Union. Perjury charges were brought against Hiss when he denied before a grand jury that he had committed espionage. He was later convicted of espionage and perjury. The Hiss-Chambers affair would prove to be the watershed case of the McCarthy period and one of the most important of the century.
Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report entitled, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. This document, which was commissioned and paid for by the U.S. State Department, outlines a global political system in which the UN has the means to impose its will upon the entire world. While the report acknowledges that creation of such a new world order may take decades or more to build, it also points out that there is “an alternative road” that could bring about results much more quickly. The alternative approach to world government “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose,” wrote Bloomfield. “According to this version, the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”
911 kinda fits that bill, doesn't it? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Zoorope
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 3:33 pm Post subject:
To me, a good canary can be China.
I don't mean they'll be in troubles before us: I mean that they don't have to listen to UN, or to USA, or to anybody. Their strategy is only save their own arses and profit of other countries problems to gain power. They just do what's needed when time comes. Look carefully what China is doing, and you'll get a good picture of the reality... they'll prepare, no matter what corporations / saudis / opec are saying. _________________ **no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
Regardless of what you think of the institution - I know a lot of people would rather see the end of it - it seems to me that without some independent and bipartisan body to bring attention to matters of international law, the global political environment becomes something like a lawless jungle.
In theory, yes if nations can negotiate and agree through some international organisation - and the UN's the obvious choice - we can coordinate response to an oil shortage.
But in practice I doubt it. Its structure prevents it. Both US and China have vetos. Both are major oil importers, and its hard to imagine either country not using its veto except in its own self interest for this critical issue.
If we had a restructuring of the UN that did away with vetos, maybe it would be able to work. But that doesnt look likely.
To me, a good canary can be China.
I don't mean they'll be in troubles before us: I mean that they don't have to listen to UN, or to USA, or to anybody. Their strategy is only save their own arses and profit of other countries problems to gain power. They just do what's needed when time comes. Look carefully what China is doing, and you'll get a good picture of the reality... they'll prepare, no matter what corporations / saudis / opec are saying.
Sure you weren't thinking of the US when you wrote that? US foreign policy e.g Iraq, Venezuela, threatening Iran etc., perhaps fits the description better. Sometimes you cant help but get the impression the US thinks it owns the planet. It behaves as if it does.
Though I think you're right that China will be a good Canary. So much of its exports are made of plastic, get shipped long distances, and are not actually essential products. And they're importing a vast amount of oil to power their expansion.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Zoorope
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:00 am Post subject:
No Fred, China is quite different from the US. When I say "they have only to take care of their own arses" I mean they don't have to please oil corporations, car corporations, weapons corporations, oil producing countries, fundamentalists allies etc. They can decide any moment to switch from this to that without asking any permission to any lobby.
Most of all, they don't have to please the people: they don't need to hide hard decisions, the people won't protest anyway. They don't need to say "everything is going fantastic!" in order to get elected.
The Chineses are dreaming of cars and comforts, but if their govt will say "Sacrifice! Switch off the light! Stay in the cold!" then they'll do that without a word.
So China can take any decision when time will come.
(Sadly, this shows that dictatures are going to manage peak oil better... unless, of course, they are corporation dictatures! ) _________________ **no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
That's alright. If I didn't get my bubble burst once in a while, I wouldn't bother coming back here. I'm here to learn, not to teach.
Just shows you what assumption can lead to, heh?
Anyway, suppose we reconstruct the UN as an alliance of convenience between powerful states to subjugate the majority...
This seems to me to also imply that the UN might well be finished early (ie canary). If there's not enough power to share, how convenient is the alliance that the UN represents?
I still humbly suggest: UN <-- Watch this space.
I guess the alternative is the that the current 'restructuring' of the UN turns out to make it an even more effective extension of US policy... In this case, the UN might survive until well into the peak, depending upon how successfully the US negotiates the peak oil potholes.
While Delta Air Lines (DAL:NYSE) appears headed for a corporate nose dive, its pilots have opted to pull the financial ripcord.
Faced with a management that has decided to use the threat of bankruptcy as a negotiating weapon, senior pilots have been filing for early retirement by the hundreds and then taking their pension in a lump-sum payout.
Quote:
Now US Airways is asking employees for another $800 million in cost savings and has stopped contributing to any of its remaining pension funds. The new plan, apparently, is to shed even more capacity, abandon another hub or two and somehow emerge as a profitable airline again. I'd have to agree with any Delta pilot who looked at that plan and said, "In your dreams." Unless oil drops to $28 a barrel, the current US Airways plan won't save the airline.
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
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
