taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Wow, CDC is full of a bunch of conspiracy theorists... Israel? Obama? CIA is doing this? IF Assad did NOT do this, why would he NOT let the UN to examine but instead destroy the evidence. Secondly, if Russia is backing Syria this MUST be someone else... What a bunch of clowns on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Wow, CDC is full of a bunch of conspiracy theorists... Israel? Obama? CIA is doing this? IF Assad did NOT do this, why would he NOT let the UN to examine but instead destroy the evidence. Secondly, if Russia is backing Syria this MUST be someone else... What a bunch of clowns on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Do you know what a petrodollar is? Stick to Miley Cyrus and american idol bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Syria hardly has any oil. War in Syria would increase the price of oil, not decrease it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Who produces the most oil of any nation and is an ally of Syria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 You're saying that Russia is fabricating this war to increase oil prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 No, I'm saying the US is. Not necessarily to increase oil prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I'm still missing the connection. Russia is the world's greatest oil produces and exporter. America is the world's greatest oil importer. What interest does the US have in increasing oil prices? How does attacking Syria with cruise missiles give the USA more access to oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 I believe it has less to do with prices and more to do with making sure oil producing nations take US Dollars in return for their oil and not another currency or gold. That is the petrodollar. If nations trade Euros or Rubles or gold for oil why would they need the USD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Firslty, the benefits of trading in US dollars are not nearly as pronounced as you are making them out to be. Secondly, In what way does total anarchy in Syria encourage Syrians to trade oil in US dollars? Edit: To clarrify my point, I understand that trading oil in US dollars has a positive effect on the value of US currency. However, the US has been purposely devaluing their own currency in order to compete with China in the import/export business. A devalued US currency also decreases the relative price of each barrel of oil. As previously mentioned, the US is the world's biggest importer of oil (although that is changing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Petrodollar Trading oil for US dollars has a positive effect on the value US dollar? How about trading oil for dollars is the only effect on the US dollar. Think about how much oil is traded in a day and what that equates to in USD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rampage Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 wait, why do people think this is fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Harper and Obama want 'firm response' to Syria attack Phone chat comes as countries' top generals strategize in Jordan Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed today that Syria's recent actions call for a "firm response from the international community," as Western countries appeared to edge toward a possible military intervention against the regime in Damascus. Chatting by phone on the escalating crisis, Harper "made it clear that he shares the view that the recent chemical weapons attack was carried out by the Syrian regime and described the use of these weapons as an outrage," a statement from the Prime Minister's Office said. Both leaders concurred that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has appeared to try to "obscure evidence" of the attack, the statement said. The phone call came as Canada's top general was in the Middle East meeting military chiefs from the U.S., Europe and several regional countries to discuss those possible responses, according to reports. The two-day summit of military brass in Amman also included the chiefs of defence staff from Britain, the United States, Turkey, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, an official source in Jordan's armed forces told the country's semi-official Petra news agency. The Canadian government would not confirm that General Tom Lawson is attending the meetings. But various reports say the defence chiefs were discussing the threat to regional security posed by the ongoing civil strife in Syria, and in particular impacts on neighbouring Jordan, where 500,000 Syrian refugees have spilled over the border. Jordan, a Western ally, would be particularly vulnerable if the Syrian army is in fact now using chemical weapons to suppress the 2½-year-old rebellion, as the U.S., Canada, Britain and Arab League affirmed this week. Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh said the talks are looking at "scenarios on the ground, especially after the recent dangerous developments," according to the Agence France-Presse news agency. AFP said Jordan expressed refusal to be used as a "launch pad" for possible military strikes on the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, consistent with Amman's long-stated preference for a diplomatic solution to the civil war, which has claimed 100,000 lives. However, a report last week in France's Le Figaro newspaper said Jordan helped the U.S. train hundreds of Syrian rebel commando fighters on its territory. Canada has so far resisted any military assistance to the Syrian rebels or the prospect of partaking in armed strikes, preferring to offer humanitarian help. Andrew MacDougall, the prime minister's communications director, repeated Tuesday that it is "premature to discuss roles" that Canada could play in an eventual military operation. Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair said Monday he wants Parliament recalled before Canada commits to any armed intervention. He added that any military offensive against the Assad regime should be debated at the United Nations first. "To see a government in the 21st century gassing its own citizens is an abomination and the world has to move against that, Mulcair said. "That should be done through the institutions of international law, in particularly the United Nations." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/27/syria-chemical-weapons-obama-harper-lawson-response.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 But once again, the US has been going to great lengths to purposely devalue their own dollar. A high dollar is not always a good thing. Particularly when you are competing against Asian countries for exports/imports. Also, merely because a barrel of oil is traded, that doesn't mean you have to physically transfer an American dollar. When the UK buys oil from the Saudis, they don't show up with a bag of US cash. They pay in UK pounds based on the exchange rate. Any stable currency can be used to buy goods on the international market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 All currencies are being devalued. Some a little more than others and at different times but the Chinese Yuan is being devalued just the like the USD. Secondly, because the USD is the reserve currency, yes, it is used in all oil transactions. The UK does not need a bag of cash, digital transactions work just fine as USD are digitial as well, obviously. Oil is traded in US dollars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdehaan Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 In the case of electronic transfer, or any kind of transfer for that matter, the US dollar is only propped up if reserves are held by eithre side. If the the UK, for instance, buys 1 million gallons of oil using UK pounds that are briefly converted electronically into US currency and then back again into some other currrency, it has no net effect on US currency prices. The theory behind the "petro-dollar" is that you need to hold large amounts of the currency in reserve. The reality of the situation is that a currency is an abstract concept. The real value of a currency is not how much of it there is but the economy behind it. The only true advantage to the petro-dollar is transactional costs. The disadvantage is that it becomes harder to manipulate the value of your own currency for short term game. And yes, many currencies are being devalued. The US more than others, hence why the Canadian dollar is on par. They are doing this to compete with the Chinese who are artificially keeping their currency low. I'm sorry, I just don't see how invading Syria would help the US economically with the "petro-dollar". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Ok, so you don't believe in the "petro-dollar" system. Please prove to me that the UK purchases oil from OPEC nations in UK pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish⑦Canuck Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Taking action on Syria would almost certainly open up a huge can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Taking action on Syria would almost certainly open up a huge can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 In the case of electronic transfer, or any kind of transfer for that matter, the US dollar is only propped up if reserves are held by eithre side. If the the UK, for instance, buys 1 million gallons of oil using UK pounds that are briefly converted electronically into US currency and then back again into some other currrency, it has no net effect on US currency prices. The theory behind the "petro-dollar" is that you need to hold large amounts of the currency in reserve. The reality of the situation is that a currency is an abstract concept. The real value of a currency is not how much of it there is but the economy behind it. The only true advantage to the petro-dollar is transactional costs. The disadvantage is that it becomes harder to manipulate the value of your own currency for short term game. And yes, many currencies are being devalued. The US more than others, hence why the Canadian dollar is on par. They are doing this to compete with the Chinese who are artificially keeping their currency low. I'm sorry, I just don't see how invading Syria would help the US economically with the "petro-dollar". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.