DescentBB

here ya go, and that BS about 'revenge against Hillary' isn't even a close guess

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/ ... li=BBnbfcL


"success or failure will largely hinge on US shale production....."

Just whats your point? The Rooskies worked hand in hand with the Saudis to control oil prices or are you deleriously happy this could jump the price of gas at the pump...much to the detriment of the American consumer?

He wanted Trump to win cause he's an idiot. Now he can play around and ★■◆●. Or something like that

woodchip wrote:Just whats your point? The Rooskies worked hand in hand with the Saudis to control oil prices or are you deleriously happy this could jump the price of gas at the pump...much to the detriment of the American consumer?

But won't the oil shale producers who were hurting because of the low oil prices now celebrate? It's now good for "bidness".

let's see if they reallly DO ramp up US production or sit on it(with Presidential incentives).And, where are the Income Tax Returns. They were promised if he won, is he waiting for the Electors to vote?

Silly me, but I can’t seem to connect the dots here.

I guess it did get by me too, so I WAS kind of wondering what slick's conspiracy theory was with this one.

my conspiracy theory is this: a rise in world prices benefits Putin mightily, but only if two things occur from the US side.First, we have to continue to restrain the output from our shale fields, and restrict exports to the global market of NG and secondly, we lift current trade sanctions on Russia. My contention has been since the summer that Trump owes huge money to Russian interests, and is willing to act in the interest of Russia and stabilize Putin's government to settle a debt. Trump's returns MIGHT shed light on the debt, or at the very least hint at it. That Exxon's guy is heading to State isn't reassuring, as Exxon has as much of a financial tie to Saudi fields as it does to domestic production and can sit on the domestic stuff for a good long while, even with higher prices, if it serves their long-term plan(and it sort of does, speaking as a stockholder). Given that there has been a lot of shale field consolidation, the payoffs to keep the lid on for a few years might not be TOO bad for the taxpayers to pick up.

I offer this only as one of a zillion potential scenarios which justify what is about to get investigated to death, judging by the headlines.

Time cover was nice, though:

Listen, I'm a little tired of reading frank paranoid aggressive delusions of American and especially British journalists. All these artistic essay, and not analytics.
Why do not we criticize Britain and USA for example for almost a complete monopoly of the world market of tea and tobacco and not only?
Why do need NATO? It is a constant and direct threat to world peace.
And many, many, many, many more things...

And the NYT hires the fired reporter who had the Clinton team proof read his stories for approval before submitting them

woodchip wrote:And the NYT hires the fired reporter who had the Clinton team proof read his stories for approval before submitting them

whee!! Completely irrelevant anti-press tripe. Discrediting the press worked for Germany in the 1930s, too.

just read an analysis in the Atlantic that is interesting: the writer theorizes that Russia is good with an America that goes all-in on petroleum production, even if there are short term competition issues, especially around natural gas. The theory goes that experts who analyze projected effects of global warming point out that some nations and regions will benefit mightily from climate change. Largest of those entites is Russia, so maybe Putin figures that having the US hasten the process works out longterm for his nation. Not saying I buy into it, but it is a different viewpoint.

Since most Republicans are good with anything petroleum anyway, it's a win, win for them. Money talks, money is king and to hell with the side issues of air and water pollution, man-made earthquakes and rising sea levels because of climate change. Sure if benefits the Russians. They get a warmer and more livable Siberia. However, we'll get the droughts and flooded coastal cities in exchange. What a deal! However, I just can't fathom how most Republicans are dealing with their internal mental conflicts about the fact that it's our old commie adversary, gasp! RUSSIA, who's going to be our new business partner in eco crime courtesy of Trump and Exxon. A business partner they shouldn't trust either. I wonder if there's any soul searching going on in their minds, or are they just rationalizing things to cover up their long time knee jerk distaste because everything is A OK as long as it's for profit and business.

I'll bet you if Hillary had been chummy with Putin and had selected the CEO of Exxon for Sec State, we'd be hearing all sorts of screaming from the right about how the Dems shouldn't be putting in a man with no political experience and who'll be friendly with a repressive autocratic dictator who's also hostile towards the U.S. Oh, wait a minute. If Hillary happened to be best buds with Putin, he would have leaked all that crap you know they hacked from the Republican servers instead of the dirt they got from the Dems. Which makes me wonder, how long before the Trump shine wears off and the Republicans get a dose of Putin's blackmail. Any smart state cyber thief would have hacked BOTH parties (which the CIA claimed they did) just to have some future leverage to play both sides against each other. We've been PWNED!

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And the NYT hires the fired reporter who had the Clinton team proof read his stories for approval before submitting them

whee!! Completely irrelevant anti-press tripe. Discrediting the press worked for Germany in the 1930s, too.

Heh, the press is doing a bang-up job discrediting itself.

callmeslick wrote:just read an analysis in the Atlantic that is interesting: the writer theorizes that Russia is good with an America that goes all-in on petroleum production, even if there are short term competition issues, especially around natural gas. The theory goes that experts who analyze projected effects of global warming point out that some nations and regions will benefit mightily from climate change. Largest of those entites is Russia, so maybe Putin figures that having the US hasten the process works out longterm for his nation. Not saying I buy into it, but it is a different viewpoint.

Yea, that makes perfect sense, considering how the Russians in sync with other nations have just agreed to reduce production.

.......................................................

tunnelcat wrote:…a man with no political experience…

Don’t really understand what it takes to run a major corporation, do you.

Maybe you meant “government” experience.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:just read an analysis in the Atlantic that is interesting: the writer theorizes that Russia is good with an America that goes all-in on petroleum production, even if there are short term competition issues, especially around natural gas. The theory goes that experts who analyze projected effects of global warming point out that some nations and regions will benefit mightily from climate change. Largest of those entites is Russia, so maybe Putin figures that having the US hasten the process works out longterm for his nation. Not saying I buy into it, but it is a different viewpoint.

Yea, that makes perfect sense, considering how the Russians in sync with other nations have just agreed to reduce production.

True, but how long will that last? We're now under the thumb of both Russia and the Saudis and Trump could care less about alternative energy. Wonderful.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:…a man with no political experience…

Don’t really understand what it takes to run a major corporation, do you.

Maybe you meant “government” experience.

You know, you might be right. There used to be a difference in priorities. The government was supposed to do things for the benefit the people and protect the nation and it's interests. Business leaders usually do things to benefit themselves and their own company, not the customer who has to deal with that company, i.e., the people. But since our government is now run by rich business interests, silly me for stating that.

from Borowitz--

Blaming Putin for Trump’s Victory Overlooks Role Played by Idiots, Experts Say
WASHINGTON--Blaming Donald Trump’s victory on Vladimir Putin ignores the pivotal role played by millions of idiots, experts say. “Vladimir Putin did not act alone,” Davis Logsdon, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota, said. “To elect Donald Trump, you needed millions of Americans making a shockingly dumb decision at exactly the same time.” Logsdon fears that, because of the media’s fascination with Russian skullduggery as the cause of Trump’s election, America’s historic level of stupidity isn’t being given its due. “At the end of the day, to pin this whole thing on Putin is very, very unfair to idiots,”

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And the NYT hires the fired reporter who had the Clinton team proof read his stories for approval before submitting them

whee!! Completely irrelevant anti-press tripe. Discrediting the press worked for Germany in the 1930s, too.

And you don't do that with Breitbart news or other conservative news sources like"Faux News"? And how is this irrelevant? Hiring schlock reporters gives the NYT more credibility?

Breitbart is a propaganda site. Fox News is a journalistic site, I've never said otherwise. They do have a clear bias, but I'm ok as long as everyone accepts that bias going in.

The real reason for picking Rex Tillerson. To get those nasty sanctions removed that Obama put on Russia after they invaded Ukraine and Crimea. The same will happen with all those other nasty little unstable tinpot countries loaded with oil around the world the U.S. tends to sanction in some form or another because of military coups and/or treaty or human rights violations, all because it's good for Exxon, not U.S. diplomacy or the suffering people of those countries.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... ign-policy

Yea, and half of that suffering is due to those sanctions.

Come on Spidey. You can't be that deluded. Even if we didn't sanction, the leaders of these countries, those countless militaristic dictators and autocrats we see repeatedly rise up in poor or unstable nations, would still screw over their people, because they want the power and control money brings. Letting our business interests operate in these types of countries only increases the wealth and strength of those leaders as more and more money flows into their hands through graft and corruption, only increasing the people's misery. You got a better idea than sanctions? Military actions perhaps? We've seen how well that worked when Bush did it.

If you can tell me how to use sanctions without hurting the regular people, I’d be all for them.

Options…how about minding our own business for a change.

Spidey wrote:If you can tell me how to use sanctions without hurting the regular people, I’d be all for them.

Options…how about minding our own business for a change.

Does minding our own business also include not doing business? How about if doing business makes people's lives worse?

Question 1: It could.

Question 2: Would need an example, hypothetical not answerable.

Answer to question #2. The evidence now shows that giving actual foreign aid tends to make things worse for the people of poor countries, so it's not a stretch to assume that a company also going into some poor country for doing business would have the same result. Why? For one of the reasons I stated above, wealth seems to always breed corruption in these particular countries. So I guess we're damned if we do either way by meddling in the affairs of other countries, or doing business with them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... hurt-them/

"It might seem odd that having more money would not help a poor country. Yet economists have long observed that countries that have an abundance of wealth from natural resources, like oil or diamonds, tend to be more unequal, less developed and more impoverished, as the chart below shows. Countries at the left-hand side of the chart have fewer fuels, ores and metals and higher growth, while those at the right-hand side have more natural resource wealth, yet slower growth. Economists postulate that this "natural resource curse" happens for a variety of reasons, but one is that such wealth can strengthen and corrupt a government."

With regard to corruption. Personally, I think that the long overdue need to make a very serious audit in the United States.