Article about OPEC and oil cut

It seems their noses are put out of joint because the oil demand has fallen and market prices are falling. I believe that the west, for sure, now understand the true situation re. oil; a strategic financial weapon, together with the wealth it produces which is then used as a strategic financial weapon on our money markets.
 
Hehe it never ceases to amaze me how fast the right wing becomes socialist on issues that affect them, so we want the oil producing companies to destroy their wealth to make our lives easier?

I wonder are there any businesses anywhere that would do this?
 
This one affects national security. Switching the primary energy source from oil to something else isn't right wing or left wing. It's also in our best interest. I guess the right move would not be for the oil companies to destroy their wealth but the country to support other sources of energy. For example, companies who wish to take part in nuclear power should be given certain advantages. Perhaps if a car manufacturer wanted to create cars that ran off batteries that recharge at stations that are fed electricity with most of the electricty coming from nuclear power plants etc., the government would aid that. Oil would get slowly lose support. That sort of thing. Actually that would be keeping it pretty capitalistic.

I am pretty conservative but for the most part I've been pretty environmentally conscious... hell I was in a University department riddled with leftists and I got along okay.
Leftists don't always have the wrong idea. It's just that there is too much of a "human faith" element to it which is why it just never works. You have to work off the assumption that every human being is a scum bag who wants to gorge himself to death. And start from there.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Hehe it never ceases to amaze me how fast the right wing becomes socialist on issues that affect them, so we want the oil producing companies to destroy their wealth to make our lives easier?

I wonder are there any businesses anywhere that would do this?
Click to expand...


Who are the 'right wing' and the 'Socialists' depicted in your scenario?
 
Last edited:
the_13th_redneck said:
This one affects national security. Switching the primary energy source from oil to something else isn't right wing or left wing. It's also in our best interest. I guess the right move would not be for the oil companies to destroy their wealth but the country to support other sources of energy. For example, companies who wish to take part in nuclear power should be given certain advantages. Perhaps if a car manufacturer wanted to create cars that ran off batteries that recharge at stations that are fed electricity with most of the electricty coming from nuclear power plants etc., the government would aid that. Oil would get slowly lose support. That sort of thing. Actually that would be keeping it pretty capitalistic.

I am pretty conservative but for the most part I've been pretty environmentally conscious... hell I was in a University department riddled with leftists and I got along okay.
Leftists don't always have the wrong idea. It's just that there is too much of a "human faith" element to it which is why it just never works. You have to work off the assumption that every human being is a scum bag who wants to gorge himself to death. And start from there.
Click to expand...


But even that is a more socialist bent as you still are making it a government problem.
The capitalist answer is that oil companies should be able to price their product at what the market will pay and when the price reaches the point where alternatives become economically viable they will be developed by other companies who will in tern sell their product at a price the market will accept.

The government role in all this would surely be to provide the conditions for these companies to function not to actually determine how they run, using your example of a power station to run cars surely the governments role is to say we want a power station that meets a certain criteria ("environmentally safe" etc.) it is up to the private sector how and what type of plant they build, it really doesn't matter whether it is run on nuclear, coal or recycled plastic spoons as long as it meets those requirements.
 
I suspect whatever the West does, they will be able to sell all the oil they wan't to the Far East at the rate they are expanding. It's definitely a sellers market in the long term.

I suppose one obvious thing we could do is simply drive smaller cars and share more. The average utilisation of a car in the UK rushour is only 1.2, so the weight of a vehicle is perhaps 20 times that of the people in it, does that make sense? :???:
 
MontyB, Capitalism is fine but government controls and favoring of businesses and industries important to the country is nothing new and quite necessary.
We've seen what complete socialism/communism is capable of and we've also seen what rampant capitalism can do.
 
perseus said:
I suppose one obvious thing we could do is simply drive smaller cars and share more. The average utilisation of a car in the UK rushour is only 1.2, so the weight of a vehicle is perhaps 20 times that of the people in it, does that make sense? :???:
Click to expand...


Many years back, the public here wanted to adopt this policy of sharing cars to work etc. The Government of the time said that it could not be allowed in that the insurance companies would not cover the passengers.

They would not wear it when it was being done for the benefit of the public.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE49J4MJ20081020

Basically OPEC is looking to cut oil supply but are looking to do it carefully with the whole crisis going on. What are they f*cking crazy??
I swear... we got to find alternative energy sources fast and then unite to shaft these OPEC countries with crappy trade deals. Hope they enjoy the taste of sand.
Click to expand...

The Saudis won't let this happen. The Iranians would like the west to pay more but don't have enough grunt to make this happen.

The Saudis control most of the worlds supply and will not go along with the other OPEC members on every issue.
 
Del Boy said:
Many years back, the public here wanted to adopt this policy of sharing cars to work etc. The Government of the time said that it could not be allowed in that the insurance companies would not cover the passengers.

They would not wear it when it was being done for the benefit of the public.
Click to expand...

Del Boy, Interesting stuff. Are you sure this means sharing as in having an extra passenger rather than sharing to actually drive the car? What government was this?
 
perseus said:
Del Boy, Interesting stuff. Are you sure this means sharing as in having an extra passenger rather than sharing to actually drive the car? What government was this?
Click to expand...

Perseus - I have a great memory, but for the life of me I cannot pin down the exact period, best guess is Harold Wilson's time.

And no, this was a clear cut issue. Guys wanting to get their work, offices in the city etc., and heading for the the same destination, wanted to go together; so that on one day one of them drove his car with up to three passengers, and the next day one of the others took his car and drove. Result, cheaper and more pleasent life style for the guys. Snuffed out as soon as it started! The passengers would not be covered by insurance - end of story. Sheer dog in the manger attitude, I reckoned. Remember, a lot of these guys worked in very large organisations for many years of their lives, in those days.
 
Getting back onto the thread ,if anyone here has a basic understanding of OPEC, it's the Saudis that call the shots. They control the price and supply. The Saudis don't want to hurt there customers much to the disappointment of the Iranians and others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top