11

Falling oil prices, the Iran deal, and Obama managing the decline of US

Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 1 month ago to Economics
88 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Do you remember when several of Obama's lackeys talked about managing the decline of the United States (and for that matter, Western civilization)?

Most of us remember what an odd deal the Obama administration made with the Iranians. Most people criticized the deal, but focused on the nuclear aspects. What most people didn't realize is that we also lifted economic sanctions on Iran, thereby increasing their GDP by 100-150 billion dollars per year. When is the lifting of those economic sanctions taking effect? TODAY. Is it any wonder that crude oil prices are going down precipitously?

What are the consequences of all this? A number of coal, shale-derived oil, shale-derived natural gas, biofuel, and solar energy companies (including those he propped up via cronyism) have either gone bankrupt or are about to do so, and the major oil companies have taken quite a hit. All of this is part of the management of the decline of the U.S.

Not coincidentally, a number of other countries are really taking a financial bath, too, as a result of Obama's meddling. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and a number of other Muslim countries are severely destabilized as a result of drastically lower oil prices. Some of these countries may actually be wanting to drive down oil prices to bankrupt competition, particularly from North Dakota. In 1982 plus or minus a year, the price of oil went from 50 dollars per barrel down to 8 to eliminate American competition, before coming back up gradually.

For those of you not personally involved with the energy business like I am, the net effect on you is lower energy costs, and therefore, significantly deflationary pressure overall. Many Gulchers, and most people in the U.S,. will like this outcome. But as for me, the Iran deal was consummated at MY expense!


All Comments

  • Posted by $ sjatkins 10 years ago
    Iran is a much better country re our interest and re its behavior internally and externally than Saudi Arabia is.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The Supreme Court put the final nails in the coffin on eminent domain, but it was people like Trump that necessitated the coffin in the first place.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    WAsnt it the Supreme Court that really put the nails in the coffin on eminent domain being OK? I know people on this forum just dislike anything that Trump does or did, but its nowhere as bad as what Hillary or Sanders have done and will do. Trump is the only one that can actually beat either of those two
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    But Trump won't try to slow this down. His view of eminent domain completely contradicts the founders on this topic. Property protection was built into the amendment that deals with eminent domain. This amendment is completely shot to hell now, thanks to people like Trump.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I think the founding fathers did very good in protecting us from England, but they ignored protecting the sanctity of private property. ( should have been. Life, liberty, and property... Instead of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) . Since then the government itself has stolen our wealth, and allowed for taking from some and giving to others. Trump can only try to slow this down by exposing what the establishment has done, but we are in the end times of socialism. The dollar is already destroyed by money printing, deficit spending, and unfounded liabilities. The financial collapse is "X" years away. Trump will help make X a larger number than Hillary or sanders or any of the unelectable republican candidates
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you sure he won't become the emperor?

    I agree we need to remove political correctness but I'm not sure he will clean out DC. He sounds like he will run over anyone who gets in his way and the thing that concerns me the most is I have not once heard him say that he will fight to defend the Constitution. I believe the solution to most of our problems can be solved by someone the looks to the original intent of our Constitution and defends it as if their life depends on it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no shortage of people slamming the anti-establishment Trump. I am voting for him, regardless of what some idiot comedian
    's views are.

    Trump says his mind, and will tell us if the emperor has no clothes. No political correctness there at all. We need that for 4 years to clean out washington.

    As to what Trump can actually do, other than raise peoples' awareness of whats going on, is NOT a lot. He would hav to have congress in his pocket, which is unlikely. Cpngress will probably be divided along party lines, and if not- Congress is mostly socialist anyway.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps I am being foolish, but I just have the feeling that he has all the money he can ever spend, and is into politics for the glamor of it, and to actually do something good for us. I dont get that feeling from ANY of the other candidates, with the possible exception of Rand Paul.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    He stands for the right to buy laws and favors through bribery, and for lots of corporate welfare. He has proudly proclaimed this, and is not ashamed of receiving both in large quantities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I wonder what investments he holds in war industries. If he has booty coming from them, he'll attack anybody.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That arrangement is the result of stupid EU antitrust law that forced the railroads to divest their tracks. Hopefully their voters will vote to leave the EU next year before Greece and Spain drag the rest down with them, and that law will go away.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "I just wish there was some history to prove that he believes what he says"

    That is the 24 million dollar question. All I can see from his history is someone who doesn't care who he steps on to get what he wants.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You missed my point being that there are technologies already here that can be built for about $10M per passenger mile (as opposed to $150M per passenger mile) and that can provide individual service at the cost of a bus ride (not subsidized by the taxpayer) that are basically autonomous vehicles (known as Personal Rapid Transit or PRT). They need very little "human" interaction and are on demand. Even with "modernization" of the rail systems, massive subsidies will always be required as well as dealing with an "entrenched" and ineffective union system. As yourself, what would Ayn Rand have to say about this. Check out Skyweb Express (http://www.taxi2000.com/) and you will see what I mean...BTW, there would be no need for government ownership of any part of a system such as this! For what its worth.....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm starting to think that Trump is all show and no substance! With that being said however, he has succeeded in conning a lot of conservatives with his rhetoric. I just wish there was some history to prove that he believes what he says and is not just parroting what 65% of Americans believe. The question, will he govern to his rhetoric or will he govern to the status quo. I think that he will be status quo all the way hence just another disappointment to Conservatives......
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I thought that also but that's not what the discussion revealed. I will post when I find that scientific article again.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    throes not to be pedantic but it's a word not used that much the rest is one thumbs up. Except they won't declare a war. If they did half of congress, Streisand and Michael Moore would be indicted. Then too there are exemptions in all insurance policies cancelling payment in the case of war meaning declared war. The 911 victims for example....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    throes not to be pedantic but it's a word not used that much the rest is one thumbs up. Except they won't declare a war. If they did half of congress, Streisand and Michael Moore would be indicted. Then too there are exemptions in all insurance policies cancelling payment in the case of war meaning declared war. The 911 victims for example....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    To my understanding, the really cheap oil is coming from South America and therefore driving prices down.
    And Yes...American crude plays a role here also.

    Interesting to note, (and it somewhat vets out) It has been revealed that some old wells have more oil in them after being played out years ago. There has been a discussion about how this happened. It might seem that oil is not the result of decaying fossils. Hot debate on both sides.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    +1. It was only Obama's lackeys that used the "manage the decline" terminology. POTUS was interested in "fundamental change", and he made it.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo