White House wants `market forces' on oil prices

[radfringe]

White House wants `market forces' on oil prices
Sept. 25, 2003, 1:36PM
Reuters News Service

WASHINGTON -- The White House said today that "market forces" should determine oil prices and that it was consulting with major oil producers after OPEC's surprise decision to cut oil output.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to comment directly on OPEC's decision, but told reporters: "Oil prices should be determined by market forces so that we can ensure adequate supplies. Producing and consuming countries both have an interest in ample, affordable energy supplies."

"Obviously we have ongoing and regular consultations with major oil producers around the world and those continue," he added.

--------------

"Obviously we are going to get screwed..."

[Sagan]

1. what happened to Chimpy's 2000 promise to corral OPEC?

Will any media whores bring this up? Does it snow in Texas in August?

[radfringe]

4. glad you brought that up

didn't he say during the 2000 campaign that if OPEC cut production he would tell them to "turn on those spigots?"

[tsipple]

2. Great. Now Get Rid of the Gov't Subsidies!

Like, oh, $87 billion in additional funding for securing the Iraqi oil fields?

[Noordam]

3. Think how much Dickie will make on $75 bbl Oil

sheeeeeeet

[htuttle]

5. The same 'market forces' affect oil as affect desktop software

It's called a monopoly, George. You seem to be in favor of them in other contexts.

And if it's a 'free market' we're after, how about we allow the oil production industry to provide it's own security (and it's own invasion force) from now on?

[demnan]

6. Aw sh*t!

There goes a gallon a gas to $5.00.

[scisyhp]

7. Isn't seller's right to decide how much of their stuff

do they want to sell at a given price part of the
"market forces"? Just asking.

[Petrodollar Warfare]

8. Do "market forces" include OIL currency options like the euro?

That IS the question Americans must ask themselves. Iraq switched it's oil export payments to the euro (in Nov 2000) and so the US invaded Iraq, and converted it back to the dollar (May 2003).

In 2001 Chavez's foreign minister suggested they might do the same (re the euro). The Bush/CIA junta tried a coup against Chavez in April 2002...wonder why?...could it have something to do with nationalizing Venezuela's oil company and enforcing dollar hegemony.

Recently, Iran's oil exports to the EU were switched to the euro this summer, and now we (the US) are openly threatening them - mainly over their nuclear program, but don't believe the hype...(see North Korea)

So, here is the *real* question. Of the 11 OPEC countries, about half of them would like to sell their oil in the euro currency (Iraq - formerly, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, possibly Nigera, and the non-OPEC oil producer leaning to the euro now seems to be Russia). That would put about 30% of the world's oil on the euro, 40% if Iraq had not been invaded. The devaluation of the US dollar would be quite real in such an event. This would make is basically impossible to fund our current and trade account decifits in that situation.

So, what of the emerging "petroeuro"? This has a beneficial impact to the aboved oil producing countries, and to the 12 (soon to be 22) nations in the EU who would no longer have currecny risk for their energy purchases, but it would create a decidely and *highly adverse* impact to the US dollar's valaution.

However, choosing currency is a soverign right of nations (as recently expressed in Sweeden), and it is an aspect of "free markets" as well. However, the US using military power and/or covert actions are actively engaged in efforts to prevent these free market forces from occuring. My question: What do DUs think of the unspoken petrodollar vs. petreuro war that is taking place? To enforce our current ultra high standard of living, is it ethically right to destroy the gov'ts of other nations to prevent them from engaging in "free market forces" regarding the CURRENCY of their oil exports?

(Serious and thoughtful answers would be appreciated)

[legin]

12. It's a guess

but probably most OPEC countries have assets in the u.s. which are freezably. If they move to the euro the assets get frozen. If they try subtly to slide the assets out of the u.s. then they get frozen.

I think Iran's assets have already been frozen from the 1979 revolution, so perhaps they are free to get away with switching to the euro, for now anyway.

Just guessing.

[hatrack]

9. Pay no attention to the BILLIONS in subsidies in the "energy" bill

Nosiree Bob, we're not driving a truckload of taxpayer bucks right up to the Exxon/Mobil world headquarters, we're letting "market forces" decide energy prices and energy policy.

Yep, and Ava Gardner discovered nuclear fission, too.

[indepat]

10. Gee market forces do work: just look at how effectively world oil prices

were spiked as the Administration stepped up increasing our national petroleum reserves during a period of very tight supplies whereas heretofore the petroleum reserves were generally increased during periods of ample supplies. Trust me: these guys from the oil patch know exactly what they are doing.

[w4rma]

11. How is SmirkCo going to enforce "market forces" on oil prices?

Most of the oil of the world is controlled by an international cartel: OPEC. OPEC ultimately decides the crude oil prices with a little influence from everyone else through diplomacy and threat of force.

Or is he talking about exerting some openness on the refined oil oligopoly in America? I seriously doubt ShrubCo will do *anything* that will lower the profits for these oil corporations.

[Vogon_Glory]

13. Market Forces and Cheney's Taks Farce

Every time I read about some fiasco or other sending the price of petroleum or refined gasoline up again, I can't help but think of the incumbent and his number two's scoffing at conservation and alternate energy sources. I still feel screwed by George Deucey-U bush's awl bidness buddies.

While I'm one of the less sanguine Demos who doubts that alternate fuels can replace petroleum in the short run, I can't help but wonder that tax breaks, subsidies, and other encouragements could have gone a long way to lessen the US's dependency on petroleum even without tightening gas milage requirements.

I like to think that a progressive administration would have a more-energy-efficient US economy with petroleum and coal playing a far smaller role than they do now and that that alternate-reality America would be in a far better position than what George the Lesser and his Republican Party pals are going to place us.

[tibbiit]

14. Is this how

The world is helping to get rid of chimpy?
$5.00 oil is not what bush-co can want in time for re-election!
So Opec is doing their part, and the rest of the UN is sitting out the quagmire letting bush squirm.
(too bad we and all the rest of the innocent peoples in the world suffer too)

tib

Does anyone remember if we tried to get the rest of the world involved in Viet Nam too? I seem to recall hate of france going on at that time too.