Is this one of those events that turn out to have been "much ado about nothing"? I'm not an expert in this area, curious if anyone has more insights into this.
It's been slow, and one can argue, visible now in the long term "in the graphs". Recovery from COVID was slow. There's a creeping cost-of-living crisis, productivity has been stagnant, investment low, etc. Some might attribute this at least in part to Brexit, some may not, but the truth is, wether Brexit played a role or not, this is how it would surface— slowly, and in the charts.
I don't know how big a deal this news is on the markets, especially given everyone's already trying to shift to renewables. And it might have been predicted in advance, unlike Brexit where the markets expected Remain.
These news on the other hand seem more abstract. There's no deal now, but the Saudis could change little in the way they do business. They could also change a lot. Other players have cards in the game too— China could start pushing a petroyuan, it could be well-received, or maybe not. There's a lot of actors in the world trade of oil, and the global use of the dollar— plus the latter depends on much more than just oil trade.
With so many questions in the air, I'm not surprised nobody is making strong bets on what will happen. And perhaps this even leads to little happening in the short term. I guess time will tell.
By pretty much every measure, Biden appears to be the establishment candidate. Who is out to get him?
Certainly the fossil fuel establishment, one of the strongest forces on the planet, would always prefer a GOP candidate over a Dem.
Other parties out to get Biden are likely corporate lobbying groups as the Dems have been showing some backbone with regard to regulations in recent times.
Then Riyadh would prefer Biden. American fossil fuel producers are their competition.
(Not claiming knowledge about MBS’s preferences. Just underlining this isn’t as simple as implied.)
Riyadh and Houston have always been on great terms as they have common goals and common enemies.
The Dems propose moving to a green economy, this is terrible for all fossil fuel extractors.
Yes, since Dems always worked just fine for them too.
> You all are wealthy enough, he (Trump) said, that you should raise $1 billion to return me to the White House. At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil...
And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
The source is a paper run by an ex-News Corp employee.
> And the same deals Dems have been making for decades too.
This is extremely hand-wavy. To get down to specifics, look at the history of the opening of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. GOP opens it, Dems close it.
Look at EPA fuel efficiency regulations, which party increases them?
I understand being frustrated by how corporate-friendly both parties in the USA are, but to just throw your hands up in the air while stating "both sides" is ignoring reality and surrendering your agency.
So someone who's used to being owned by a billionaire and pushing their agenda, and good at it, and presumably doing the same thing now under another billionaire? What point were you trying to make?
Both candidates are ancient.
Some want different candidates. On both sides.
In the current election system of primaries (in place since 1972), an incumbent has never lost. They haven't even lost a state in 44 years. So basically the incumbent has a defacto first right of refusal when it comes to their party's nomination.
The other party has been shaped by a political movement with a lot of power and momentum, and the founder of that movement more or less has the same defacto first right of refusal.
Prompt: list of us presidents and their year of birth and age when elected
An election is fundamentally binary: it has one winner and everyone else is equally a loser. There are other structures that don't fall prey to that, such as multi member districts or party lists. As long as the election has a unique outcome, everyone else is equivalently irrelevant.
Let's say there are two main political ideologies, kittens and puppies. There are two kitten candidates and one puppy candidate.
With a preferential voting system, if more people like kittens than puppies, a kitten will almost certainly win.
With an FPP system, the puppy will almost certainly win regardless of people's preference.
There are only two candidates in US elections because having a third candidate will almost certainly mean the least popular old codger will win.
The two-candidate presidential system is a consequence of a broken voting system.
Maybe someone can explain what I'm saying that incorrect.
The fact that they're both elderly is kind of a coincidence. It is true that older candidates are the ones with the longest track record of accomplishments and the most extensive alliances.
But the GOP candidate had little government experience and somewhat dubious business experience. He is nonetheless popular for his style and positions.
Both parties are very diverse and it's difficult to find someone tolerable to all. Many actively despise their party's candidate but the alternative to the consensus risks losing entirely. It is generally thought to be better to vote for a suboptimal candidate than a pessimal one, though some vocally disagree.
A young, charismatic candidate could come up next time around, but to be honest neither party seems to have one getting ready.
So here we stand, with our leaders entering the high positions of power well after they should have retired. In the president's case, his first run for the presidency was 32 years before he eventually won it in 2020. That spacing is the bulk of most people's working life.
In 2028 both parties will really have to figure something out. At least (hopefully) neither Trump nor Biden will be eligible to run.
Not accounting for death from old age making them physically ineligible, since that's also a very real concern at this point for both.
Which is why your comparison doesn't make sense to me--Haley is obviously the spicy one in the comparison.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34FsIJFT6N8 (For context see this excellent Jezebel article https://www.jezebel.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-an-all-american... [2] and accompanying video https://youtu.be/TxAlJq94-b8)
[2] which even cites Brother Malcolm himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsuaFmN2O98&t=3m35s
But now that you made me think about it, Indian Malcolm X is probably Kshama Sawant or someone like that
[1] Although India loves socialism, it's like cricket and biscuits--stuff we inherited from white people.
Bridges aren't typically their target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_the_Sept...
1. One guy who worked for Saudi intelligence knew about the attacks (disputed).
2. 15 of 19 attackers were Saudi nationals (dubious relevance, generally we don’t blame a whole country for crimes committed by individuals from that country).
3. Bin Laden family has close ties to the Saudi royal family, and Al Queda got funded by the Bin Laden family.
My surface-level takeaway is that Saudi royals deserve criticism for associating with the supporters of terrorism. However, I don’t see evidence the Saudi state conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks.
9/11 is a turning point in world history. Even today, much of what's going on in the digital world around cybersecurity, digital rights and software design is reverberating from what happened two decades ago. I have people close to me still living with the PTSD.
I think for some of the current generation who cannot directly remember it but live in the shadow, it's what WW2 was to mine.
For them it's important to keep clarity, and not give in to myths, convenient narratives and conspiracy theories. And that takes constant courage.
Looking back at it, it's beyond insane. We waged two theatres of war against completely the wrong countries, killed millions and wrecked our own culture, waged disinformation psyops on our own people to maintain a lie, for what?
And despite shooting Bin Laden - which was never a trial or any kind of real justice by our standards of civilisation, I can't help thinking the bad guys just got away with it all.
And there they are, still talking about "petrodollars" while the climate fails and the planet burns.
Not disputed. You didn't go far enough. Saudi intelligence agent met a set of the attackers in L.A. at the airport. He drove them, and had their first apartment setup. They started using computers in that apartment using Flight Sim software, for them to start training flying. He gave them cash. They scheduled enrolling in their classes in the Florida flight school from that apartment at that time.
https://www.propublica.org/article/sept-11-family-lawsuit-sa...
And Iran finds itself emboldened by renewed ties to Russia.
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
Whether or not anyone actually said it, it seems to be more and more likely as oil verrrry slowly becomes less and less relevant.
Having primed myself so, I had to reread the camel quote a few times before I understood it!
Look at COVID crisis, we are yet to fully understand the consequences of the government monetary actions
It would take some serious changes in the global economy to make this news impactful. At which point we might as well call out the possibility of the Teton Pass collapse influencing the odds of China invading Taiwan.
It won't lead to much in the short term, that's certain. A boat as big as the global economy doesn't steer quickly. But in the long term it very well could. Or it could not, if the USA makes sure to keep the dollar in the center of world trade in other ways.
In history. Not today. Remember, in 1974 the U.S. didn’t trade with China [1], the USSR or the Soviet-aligned world. (We were also a massive energy importer [2].)
There is a reason the term petrodollar only shows up in fringe blogs, and never in monetary policy discussions (since at least Greenspan).
[1] https://guides.loc.gov/us-trade-with-china
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_energy_indepen...
The fact that China, Korea or India for example have to buy oil in USD rather than in Saudi Riyal or their local currencies, helps the USD.
I also want to point out "petrodollar" isn't a fringe topic. It wasn't when it was first coined, and even if it's spoken-of little nowadays, that's not a measure of its importance. Few people spoke about CDOs before the 2008 crisis. They were about to play a central role in what was to unfold, but people just weren't paying attention to them.
Again, I'm not saying the USD's dominance is about to end tomorrow. I'm just saying it's an error to dismiss this event as unimportant, in this case on the basis that the USA doesn't import as much energy, or that nobody is talking about the petrodollar. It might not be that important, or it might turn out to be. If we do see effects though, I'd expect them to be in the long-term anyway. Geopolitics are slow. The global economy doesn't change course in a day or a year.
It is entirely dwarfed by the volume of their non-oil trade.
> Few people spoke about CDOs before the 2008 crisis
Everybody in mortgages, leveraged finance and structured finance was. That’s the point. The experts aren’t talking about the petrodollar; it’s bloggers and commenters.
> wasn't when it was first coined, and even if it's spoken-of little nowadays, that's not a measure of its importance
It was very real in 1974. Post 2008, it’s a fringe element.
> it's an error to dismiss this event as unimportant
Their currency is pegged to the dollar. Nobody from the U.S. seriously pushed to renew the pact; it also limits American diplomacy vis-à-vis Riyadh.
To the degree it’s important it’s in America signalling that to Riyadh that it is disposable, that America’s military and political protection cannot be taken for granted.
The overall fate of the USD as the world's reserve currency depends on a lot of factors beyond this event, but I think we also shouldn't mistake this event as unimportant. I might or might not have important consequences, but it's also a data point that's telling on other diplomatic and geopolitical trends going on in the world.
But american foreign police need to have some serious re-calibration if washington wants the party to go on. The times for pushing and shoving other countries are probably over.
This isn't the petrodollar. It's the post-Bretton Woods international order. (And a reflection of the depth and openness of the American financial system.)
Petrodollar refers to a specific aspect of that arrangement in which America mandated certain oil exporters only trade their oil for dollars and then reïnvest those dollars into U.S. Treasuries in exchange for military and political support. That's done.
It's not a falling meteor, it's an trade/agreement/commercial change.
The impact of this takes months or even years to fully develop, and cascades with other factors.
Geopolitical stuff, with some exceptions, tends to unravel over years or decades.
This is a sizable event, and it will likely have quite an impact, but unless they renegotiate it , it's going to be a decades long thing.
It is possible that this is one of those few scenarios, where it is a 'good thing' that world is distracted by Ukraine/Russia war and Israel/Palestine; oh and elections.
Full disclosure: I asked uncensored llama, but its predictions seemed off to me.
It is no different than China divesting US treasuries. There were people that asserted this would be apocalyptic but there was nothing substantive behind those fears. And then it actually happened and no one noticed.
The Us is now a massive producer of oil, but it is not a massive net exporter of it, because it consumes a lot. So, when the big net exporters of oil decide to accept other things in payment in lieu of the USD it inevitably has a depressing effect on the global demand for the dollar.
Which they will then trade for USD and stash in banks or buy stuff from the US
Every billateral trade you do in another currency other than the US, means your demand for dollars has decreased.
Wrong [1]. We are the world's largest producer and 4th-largest exporter, halfway to Saudi Arabia and three quarters to Russia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_expor...
The reason why this happens I leave as an exercise for the reader that is so gung-ho in calling others wrong.
U.S. Net Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
Note that this is a "net imports" graph where values below 0 indicate net exports. The graph shows that the last year where the US was a net importer was 2019.
You’re wrong, as the other comment points out. But these numbers are so wildly wrong that I’m curious for your source.
(8.5mm b/d in vs 10.15mm b.d out [1] in 2023. If we limit ourselves to crude oil, it's 4.1mm b/d out [2] vs hundreds of thousands in [3]. A literal order of magnitude.)
[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727
[2] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61584
[3] https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
Yes, oh, the US got a small superavit in 2023. It is still not a relevant net exporter and won't be for the simple reason investments in the development of new fields have basically stopped with the Democrat government. So, the production will inevitably fall in the following years.
I could imagine negotiations going on behind closed doors. The USA is still a gorilla with firepower that can be used as leverage. But MBS is an unstable egomaniac who probably doesn't respond well to threats... My guess is China is trying to woo him, although China doesn't seem to do "diplomacy by aircraft carrier", at least not outside its own seas. I wonder if Putin has any influence, at the moment he can only be China's little brother, and besides, he's friends with Iran and S.A. and Iran aren't friends...