The news this week?

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Sun 26 Jun 2005, 23:41:51

I remember thinking last week that things were going to heat up in the oil markets and sure enough, big increases. What's in store this week? $70 oil? I heard on Drudge that there is mainstream talk of doubling oil prices. Looks like all the happy talk about, well, at least we have a few more years may be off the mark.

by **k_semler** » Sun 26 Jun 2005, 23:58:16

End of the week: $59.15 LSCO +/- $0.25. That is my prediction.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:03:12

Another thing I noticed about the news this past week. There seems to be a taboo on the subject of oil depletion. The press release about the big simulation of an oil emergency was chalked up to civil unrest, terrorist attacks, anything but the truth. I know for a fact that those guys doing the simulation in Washington know about the depletion situation, but they wouldn't come out and put it into their highly publicized stunt. These were ex-CIA directors and they know what is happening but they wouldn't put it into their scenario. How long until the taboo breaks apart?

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:09:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('k_semler', 'E')nd of the week: $59.15 LSCO +/- $0.25. That is my prediction.

by **k_semler** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:25:35

Do you have a live feed of the Drudge Report? Time here is 21:23, and the only thing I heard about the oil price was "hovering on $61" I started listening about 20:15. Did he say it before this, or am I getting a delayed feed? Dude, I hope Matt Drudge is wrong. :shock:

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:30:42

Nope, that's what he said. I just heard it too. The other thing that is going to become hot news is what to do about this bid by the ChiComs to buy UniCal. Washington is divided about it along the lines of business vs. security. This story is likely to heat up soon.

by **k_semler** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 00:37:14

OK, that's what I heard too. He is now talking about mosquetoes. (21:36.9)

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 01:02:27

I don't envy Bush on this one. What a mess. We need the Chinese investment in US government Treasury notes but they are also obviously preparing for War. War against the US. Let me say it again, War against the US. That means ThermoNuclear. There is no way around it. The oil age and history has produced this monster economy which is fueling the whole world. Now China says 'step aside'. They are on the edge of collapse, and much less secure than the US, but the US is on the edge too. Its all in real time folks.

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 01:28:19

This whole China vs. the US thing reminds me of my childhood. When I played in little league baseball I got into a fight with this tough guy. We wrestled around behind the backstop. Later on he turned out to be one of the big criminal elements in my High School. I mean serious criminal rapists bankrobber types. Another friend of mine told me how they were planning to rape a waitress. Evil guys. I got picked up hitchhiking by this guy and a friend of his (before he got sent to prison) and mouthed off at him in a kidding way. (I remembered fighting him). The friend acted astonished but the tough guy just shrugged it off. He remembered our childhood fight and gave me a pass. Global politics, childhood fights, what,s the difference.

by **savethehumans** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 01:30:01

I read a story around 10pm Sunday night that the Asian markets had opened, and the price was at $60.41. Looks like Drudge is on top of this one. . . .

by **PenultimateManStanding** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 01:57:04

Most human beings have not progressed beyond their childhood in any significant manner. Making money is not progress. Just another illusion

by **Jack** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 02:39:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'H')ow long until the taboo breaks apart?

by **Carlhole** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 03:56:36

What do you bet that the US Gov't allows the sale of Unocal to the Chinese?

I think they just about HAVE to allow the sale in order to avoid alienating China and to avoid pushing the Chinese into an alliance with Iran or other so-called rogue states.

As US debt grows (whatthefuck, it's already beyond comprehension), the more we are simply in hock to our major creditors, Asians. This gives the Chinese considerable leverage over us in any deals we make with them.

It all makes sense that we would invade Iraq and Central Asia in a last ditch effort to hang on to American preeminence in world affairs.

by **Carlhole** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 04:09:15

With Bid for Unocal, U.S. Struggles on China Policies
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/busin ... nted=print

"Remember, to the Chinese everything is related: the economics, the diplomacy, the military posture. It's all one," said a senior administration official, who declined to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy.

The White House's reasons for playing for time, and avoiding any immediate escalation of tensions with Beijing, start with the fact that its most urgent diplomatic priority right now - defusing the nuclear threat from North Korea - depends to a great extent on cooperation from China. That effort is entering a crucial phase.

But there are other strategic reasons to keep the relationship on an even keel. The financial stability of the United States, with its chronic budget deficits and propensity to spend far more than its saves, depends increasingly on the willingness of China to buy American government bonds. Any breach in relations could lead to higher interest rates.

At the same time, the administration is trying to contain a protectionist backlash aimed not just at China but at Mr. Bush's free-trade philosophy in general. Congress has already grown impatient with what many members of both parties see as China's unwillingness to play by the rules of the global economy; any steps that inflame anti-China feelings could give new impetus to efforts to impose tariffs or other trade sanctions over the White House's objections.

The proposed deal presents Mr. Bush himself with a tough trade-off when it comes to economic openness. Mr. Bush has long lauded the benefits of reduced barriers to the flow of goods, services and money, and for the most part his administration has welcomed investment by China in American companies. This year, the administration approved I.B.M.'s sale of its personal computer business to a Chinese company, Lenovo. This openness also works in the other direction: Bank of America said earlier this month that it would pay $2.5 billion for a stake in China Construction Bank.

Mr. Bush has made "energy independence" one of his defining themes. While the Chinese in this case say they would not be taking oil away from the United States, the deal's opponents suggest that it would place a vital resource in the hands of a nation that has a voracious and growing appetite for energy to fuel its rip-roaring economic expansion.

by **DriveElectric** » Mon 27 Jun 2005, 06:48:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')It occurs to me that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding property rights may well have been motivated by peak oil.

The news this week?

The news this week?

Who is online