Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
I don't have any answers, but I have a few questions.
How much more oil is being consumed now compared to what was being consumed when BR was in the Clinton administration? I would assume that there is much more being consumed, and even if the US consumption is larger in raw numbers, I'll bet that it is smaller in the proportion of total oil consumed. What I'm getting at is that it would probably require a much bigger release of oil reserves to affect international oil prices. And that would require a much bigger risk.
Then again, my assumptions could be all wet.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
I think we're talking apples and oranges here.
My point was that Richardson was explaining that we weren't ACTUALLY selling the oil, we were manipulating the futures market.
Considering that the USA was on the top of the heap back then, the dollar was the world's reserve currency, and strong, and while not backed by gold is WAS backed by plutonium, we were the biggest player at the table.
We could buy every hand. And even is some jerkoff got lucky and won one by betting his underwear while we were mixing another drink, we could double down on the next hand and have him leaving wearing a barrel.
Seems like Shrub even crashed the price of oil by saying he was going to open up drilling in the ANWR. And he didn't even have to ante.
My question is, if we can sell high, buy low, and relieve the pressure at the pumps by playing the futures market, why don't we do it all of the time. Other than the suckers will wise up and use different tactics.
Let's talk about the downside. Can't have a winner without having a loser.
Chas