Iran Poised to Destroy the Dollar with Euro-based Oil Bourse?
The Energy Bulletin reports,
The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system. [… S]hould the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation’s exchange.
See also “Petrodollar Warfare” and “The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target.” For counterpoint, see “Strange Idea About The Iranian Oil Bourse,” but be sure to read the counter-counterpoints in the comments.
Thanks for posting this. Peak Oil awareness has yet to hit the Jewish world with any force.
I look foward to empty roads in Israel and trapped suburbanites freaking out. Yay!
Looks like we’re back to the conspiracy theories. But which theory explains the Iraq War? The “Energy Bulletin” loon says it was because Saddam traded oil for Euros. But what happens to the other theories? What about 1) seizing the Iraqi oil; 2) Bush finishing the job his father started; 3) enriching Halliburton; 4) the neo-Cons manipulating America to serve Israel’s purposes; 5) the military-industrial complex instigating wars for profit; 6) the Elders of Zion and the Illuminati trying to take over the world? Do all these theories work together? Do the people who purvey them even care whether they make any sense? Or is the entire purpose to discredit America and/or Bush, with the reasons to be named later, if at all?
And the “Energy Bulletin” article was incoherent. Not that that matters to the writer and his supporters.
i find it very telling that you lump very credible concerns about the interests of the military industrial complex and the interests of the neocon ideologues in with conspiracy theories about the illumanti and “the elders of zion.”
I put that last one in as a joke. Sort of. But since you don’t seem to care about the veracity or credibility of your sources, so long as they reach the conclusion you want (and bearing in mind the time you quoted from a website that took UFOs seriously), maybe you aren’t as far as you think from the Elders of Zion and Illuminati folks.
Krassimir Petrov — the author in question — has a PhD in economics and teaches at an accredited international university. Do you have a PhD? Are you qualified to teach an economics course? Do you have anything to say that actually challenges his argument other than the charge of conspiracy theory?
If I told you Iran was developing nuclear weapons without a shred of evidence and sheaths of IAEA testimony to the contrary, would you accuse me of conspiracy theory?
If I told you that Bush & his cronies falsified evidence supporting their false assertion that Iraq had a WMD program and that a number of CIA, NSA, Pentagon, State Department and White House insiders have all come out saying that the books were cooked, would you charge me with conspiracy theory?
If I told you the sky was blue, would you charge me with conspiracy theory?
Iran’s plans to launch the Euro-backed oil bourse was considered one of Project Censored top underreported stories in 2006.
Rather than challenging the argument, as the professor of economics at UC, whose blog entry I linked to, saw it important enough to do, you’re dismissing the source as non-credible (without any justification) and brushing it all of as conspiracy theory and trying to say that because I once linked to a questionable source out of how many thousands of blogposts in the last three years, this proves something about my credibility.
Gimme a friggin’ brake.
Well, yes, actually I do have a Ph.D. in Economics and taught at the university level for about a decade before concluding that academics was just “too dirty” of a business. And, yes, I can tell you unconditionally that the “Peak Oil” line is bunk.
Now the world shifting out of Dollars into Euros or Yuans, however, well…. we can hope. SOMETHING has to finally restrain the federal government of the U.S. , and maybe a nice run away inflation would be some help in that regard….
note: craig j. bolton and j are not the same person.
i never claimed the peak oil thing is true. but i do think “peak climate” is, and if we don’t convert to clean burning fuels like biodiesel soon, we’re all fucked.
“Krassimir Petrov — the author in question — has a PhD in economics and teaches at an accredited international university. Do you have a PhD? Are you qualified to teach an economics course?”
Oh gee, a PHD! A teaching job! Well, then, who could argue with him?
This is called “an argument from authority”. A fallacy. In any case, I could find thousands of PHDs, from better universities, with more prestigious jobs, who would agree with me. And, by the way, I did major in Economics. Did you? Well, you have nothing to say to me, then. And since I have a law degree from a top school, I guess you’ll now be forced to agree with anything I have to say about law. Silly.
“Do you have anything to say that actually challenges his argument other than the charge of conspiracy theory?”
Yes. His article made no sense. Why don’t you actually read it? (Some of the problems, briefly: Paragraph 5 – ‘imperial policy’ ascribed to 1960’s inflation, but according to the article, the “imperial tax” came in the 1970’s; Paragraph 6 – assumption that delinking gold was intended, and had the effect, of taxing foreigners – rather, it would disadvantage both American and foreign holders of dollars, and advantage both American and foreign holders of commodities and goods; and above all, the assumption that in order to purchase oil, dollars had to be acquired and held for any significant amount of time (remember that in order for inflation to become a factor, foreigners would have to hold onto their dollars for a period of time), when, in fact, dollars could be acquired right before purchase.)
“Rather than challenging the argument, as the professor of economics at UC, whose blog entry I linked to, saw it important enough to do, you’re dismissing the source as non-credible (without any justification) and brushing it all of as conspiracy theory ”
Maybe you should read that carefully, too. That guy didn’t just challenge the argument. He exposed it as absurd. Petrov’s thesis relies on a necessity for purchasers of oil to amass large dollar holdings. This is not so. Any beginner in economics would know that. And out of this Petrov constructs an entire worldview regarding American imperialism and the reason for the Iraq War. The guy’s a crackpot. Study some economocs, and learn why. Or, in the alternative, try placing common sense ahead of ideology.
“and trying to say that because I once linked to a questionable source out of how many thousands of blogposts in the last three years, this proves something about my credibility.”
That was only the funniest example, of many instances, of your willingness to trust the writings of crackpots. And most people, even after thousands of posts, do manage to avoid recommending UFO sites.
Well, we finally agree – I am most definitely not Craig J. Bolton, who apparently lives in a world where the US Federal government is a menace, but China is not.
of the three articles i chose to highlight, i ran with the most recent one as the lede. if is argument is flawed, fine — though there are some rebuttals on the blogpost i linked to. i’m curious as to what you have to say about the “the real reasons why iran is the next target” article, though, which makes a similar argument but for different reasons.
as per the authority remark, all i’m saying is that i’m more likely to trust the word of a professor with a phd than a troll on my website. which, btw, you should know, trolling is now a federal offense.
“if is argument is flawed, fine — though there are some rebuttals on the blogpost i linked to.”
It’s not that the argument is “flawed” – if your’e willing to accept the criticism of the argument, then you realize that it’s dead wrong. And this argument is the thread from which hangs an entire worldview purporting to explain large global events. That’s a problem.
I will give you the credit for posting a counterargument – but having read it, you really should have known better than to present the initial argument in the first place.
“i’m curious as to what you have to say about the “the real reasons why iran is the next target†article, though, which makes a similar argument but for different reasons.”
I read the article. It looks pretty similar to the first one, and I think it shares the same fatal error. Here’s a hint concerning how to evaluate it: it goes into great detail on some side issues, but says almost nothing in the most crucial areas: what would be the magnitude of the effect upon the American economy if the Iran bourse plan went into effect? I realize that it would be impossible to calculate this with any precision, but the article doesn’t even give us ballpark estimates. Would the entire financial structure of the US come crashing down? Would we lose 30% of our GDP? 10%? 1%? This is no minor detail. According to the article, the US would be willing to go to war against Iran to prevent this loss. Also bear in mind that these articles are trying to replace the conventional wisdom about how the world operates with surprising new ideas known only to the few. While that certainly doesn’t automatically discredit them, it would be wise to demand more than just some vague notions before accepting them.
“as per the authority remark, all i’m saying is that i’m more likely to trust the word of a professor with a phd than a troll on my website. which, btw, you should know, trolling is now a federal offense. ”
Fortunately for me, the Federal government doesn’t define trolling as criticism and disagreement, which apparently some people have little tolerance for. I don’t run around smearing my opponents with things like “the Fuhrer principle”; I don’t have to.
touche salesman
You’ve already used that line. And it’s not about the salesman, it’s about the product.
Either defend your positions, or find new ones.
you did notice the question mark after the title of the post, did you not? this is not “my” position. it’s something i came across that i thought was interesting and worth sharing & discussing. you have a tendency of backing me into a corner to stand up for things other people have written.
Yet oddly nearly all of the political material presented by you comes from a particular political position. Of all the incredible volume of relevant and credible political items you could post (including some from the liberal side), you choose items like the one we’ve been discussing. Your choices do reflect on you, even if you don’t always adopt their positions. It seems like bashing the people and entities you don’t like is far more important to you than the truth. Why don’t you ask yourself why?
Well, we finally agree – I am most definitely not Craig J. Bolton, who apparently lives in a world where the US Federal government is a menace, but China is not.
Comment by J — February 22, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
===========================
Actually, that’s quite true. I live in the U.S., so the federal government of the U.S. IS a very significant threat to my health and happiness. The Chinese government, on the other hand, is hanging on by the skin of its teeth and is a threat to no one [not even that much of a threat to most Chinese any more]. Maybe at least one state in human history will in fact wither away – albeit not in the way Marx had in mind.
It seems like bashing the people and entities you don’t like is far more important to you than the truth.
what you and i see as the truth are two very different things.
Understatement of the year. But you might want to call a temporary truce and join me in asking Craig Bolton (who has a PHD!) to test his theory about the Chinese government by going to China and agitating for Tibetan rights. Then we’ll see who’s hanging on by the skin of his teeth. Good luck!
indeed…as the former ny state coordinator of students for a free tibet, i implore craig to reconsider his remarks.