I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

[touchring]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

Futhermore, I would say that China, just like any major power, has plans in place. A plan A, a plan B, a plan C, etc... And I would not think it a stretch of the imagination that China is envious or at least concerned of the US Middle East presence. I would think they prefer their own troops in a SHTF scenario....

Ever tried go dating in a bus? Or taking your family and year old baby for a family outing in a bus?

Who doesn't want a car? You want, the Chinese want also.

Besides, China is now an economic power and makes every damn thing from iPhone to high speed trains. Why shouldn't the average Chinese be able to own a car? Any American or European who does think so is naive.

Thank you for your answer, but I don't believe that these kind of things can be demonstrated with charts, because they involve situations that have not happened.

If we go by this argument then the US must be a fool to allow China into the WTO because the day China entered the WTO is the start of the decline of America. The world cannot accommodate two Americas.

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

Thank you for your answer, but I don't believe that these kind of things can be demonstrated with charts, because they involve situations that have not happened.

Just to explain my point of view, I ask you this question: suppose that you are the Middle East, and that you haven't any kind of foreign military pressure to force or influence your decisions. At which price would you sell your oil today?

I don't know about you but I would most probably double the price.

It is amusing that you say the charts don't matter, yet the situation you put forward equally doesn't exist.

And to answer your question: the situation did occur before.

When the US exited Bretton Woods, the Arabs discovered that they were sitting on worthless dollars - so they increased the price in dollars of oil.

However, doing so caused both tremendous political pressure and massive recessions in Europe and the US.

Some say it was the former which led to the creation of the petro-dollar - certainly at least somewhat true.

But equally true is that the latter caused oil derived income to fall as demand fell precipitously. It also led all of Western Europe to enact policies specifically to limit their dependence on imported oil - see Messmer plan. See also the enactment of the CAFE standards in the US.

So your theoretical argument that the SA/Oman/UAE Arabs could charge more for oil was in fact tested - and failed. Simply owning a resource other people want doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it - especially as there are always alternatives.

More importantly, if you consider high price to be the objective, then again how does the US spending so much on military adventures in Iraq (ongoing), Israel (ongoing), Afghanistan (ongoing) leading to higher oil prices make sense from a US perspective?

If anything, the primary beneficiaries of this military adventurism spending are the SA/Oman/UAE Arabs.

In a traditional colonial situation - the resource gained via military adventurism falls in price. This has not happened.

The point I think you're making is that troops or no troops present, the US, through many methods, including foreign aid, diplomatic pressure, and covert operations, influences oil. If that is what you are saying, I agree with you. Troop involvement is but one of many methods used by the US, not the only one.

Again you're changing your stripes.

Now it is influence of all sorts.

This is as idiotic as your previous arguments - because EVERYONE has influence of some sort.

Russia influences via arms sales to Iraq (pre 'liberation').

India influences via machinations in Afghanistan (pre US occupation).

Saudi Arabia influences via support for Shiite Wahhabist groups all over the ME and North Africa.

Iran influences via support for Shia groups all over the ME and North Africa.

The part that you're missing is this: the US is a declining power. The eruption of pointless and stupid conflicts is exactly the behavior of a nation trying to punch above its weight, along the lines of Plehve's infamous "short, victorious war"

[gnk]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

c1ue,

I am not changing my stripes, I'm describing reality and the point I have been making all along. The US is still the dominant power in the Middle East.

Period.

Will that change in the future? Maybe, but only a major war will determine the next major player in the Middle East, or if the US can hold onto the dominant role it has today.

c1ue, here's an expression you may find useful in your analysis:

You can't see the forest for the trees.

[Alvaro Spain]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

It is amusing that you say the charts don't matter, yet the situation you put forward equally doesn't exist.

And to answer your question: the situation did occur before.

When the US exited Bretton Woods, the Arabs discovered that they were sitting on worthless dollars - so they increased the price in dollars of oil.

However, doing so caused both tremendous political pressure and massive recessions in Europe and the US.

...

So your theoretical argument that the SA/Oman/UAE Arabs could charge more for oil was in fact tested - and failed. Simply owning a resource other people want doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it - especially as there are always alternatives.

C1ue, I told you beforehand that I could be wrong. Nevertheless, I'll tell you my opinion. You are in the right when you say that the situation I talk about was tested in the seventies. The arabs (to simplify) caused a massive recession, and I guess that they didn't care too much about that, since many people in the Middle East believe that they have been victimised by the West.

Now, with peak oil looming and with the USA being much more dependent on foreign oil, (and being a very different country), the situation is more dangerous.

I cannot imagine the USA in the seventies doing "preemptive wars" or whatever you want to call them, or invading a country.

I hope I won't offend you with MY OPINIONS but I believe that the USA was a great country until the sixties (not every spaniard will agree with me), and that now, in 2011, it is, unfortunately, a very different country.

So, to sum up, and just because you asked me, the USA spends so much money in the military because otherwise oil would be more expensive.

I will try to flatter you . I believe that your country is intelligent and that they pay the military for some valid reason. I believe that your govetnment has calculated the possible costs, benefits and risks and has arrived at the better possible solution.

[mr_fibuli]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

A little OTT - I am no economist but I can't see how true hyper inflation can occur in a country that owes its debts in its own currency?
The US may be in trouble but it is not Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Weimar Republic etc.

Mad Max scenarios are pretty rare in human history and if people need to stock food and water for 6 months to survive as is suggested here I would add an ample supply of guns 'n' ammo to the list of must haves....

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

The arabs (to simplify) caused a massive recession, and I guess that they didn't care too much about that, since many people in the Middle East believe that they have been victimised by the West.

Given that the people you refer to are the common people, but the people I refer to are the actual rulers, I think what matters is what lessons were learned by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the UAE.

OPEC in the 1970s was about gaining recognition; OPEC of the 1980s and later was about maintaining a stable oil price hence oil income.

Now, with peak oil looming and with the USA being much more dependent on foreign oil, (and being a very different country), the situation is more dangerous.

I cannot imagine the USA in the seventies doing "preemptive wars" or whatever you want to call them, or invading a country.

So what would you term sending at peak over 550,000 American troops into Vietnam? And having 50,000 killed there? All in the name of fighting 'Communism'?

The only reason the Unites States was not more militarily active was simply that it couldn't be due to the fallout from the ongoing massive commitment in Vietnam. As far as active militarily - the US was plenty active.

And yet again, while not all of the US' economic problems which led to the withdrawal from Bretton Woods can be blamed on Vietnam and its predecessor, the Korean War, it is without question that these conflicts were a huge part of said problems.

So, to sum up, and just because you asked me, the USA spends so much money in the military because otherwise oil would be more expensive.

What you're saying is that you have no historical precedent of military conflict successfully procuring oil supply and no correlation between military intervention and lower prices, but that you believe what you believe.

In this respect you are well matched with gnk.

A little OTT - I am no economist but I can't see how true hyper inflation can occur in a country that owes its debts in its own currency?

Most hyperinflations actually reduce debt by destroying internal debts while preserving external debts at a more or less equal purchasing power state. For one thing, the internal debts almost always are far larger than the external ones - and note in this example said debt doesn't have to be in the form of a loan. It can be in the form of retirement benefits in the national pension plan, it can be in the form of government spending, etc etc.

A country which owes some part of itself too much money is in fact more likely to benefit from hyperinflation.

[c1ue]

Re: I mean, really, how bad will it get for the average man or woman on the street?

For those actually interested in facts - here's the graph of US troops in the Middle East vs. oil price

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Cal/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]Sources:
oil prices
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/in...ices_Table.asp

US troops in Middle East (and everywhere else)
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...ment-1950-2005

oil price vs US troops in ME.png