while various middle eastern oil exporters may boycott exporting to some markets, they would still have the option of exporting to other markets. Whether this is for the full price they would sell it to the U.S., or somewhat less, that is one crisis that may not unfold.
The conclusion of globalism is that most of the countries the U.S. has trading deficits with have more to trade for that oil. We don't export metal ores, fruits and vegetables, or consumer electronics. We don't export appliances, we don't export cars that are easy to fix, or electronic generators that are easy to fix.
I don't think I understand the point you're making. What you've posted seems like two paragraphs out of the middle of a longer post that establishes context. I'll be happy to read as much as you care to post, or if you want to post a link to something you've written elsewhere, I'll be happy to read it.
Re: wiggle roommagicgravelMay 11 2008, 17:07:59 UTC
Hello,
I listened to the audio file you had posted. It mentioned a scenario where a dirty bomb would shut down production of oil in saudi arabia. Western reaction to this spurred other oil exporters in the region to halt exports. Then banks started failing and riots ensued in cities all over.
In this particular scenario I believe it would be possible for the oil exporters of the Middle East to simply boycott selling oil to places other than the ones they are boycotting.
Thanks to globalism there are plenty of developed and developing countries that have more to offer in trade than the U.S. does have to trade. At least, in terms of material goods if not dollar bills.
In this particular scenario I believe it would be possible for the oil exporters of the Middle East to simply boycott selling oil to places other than the ones they are boycotting.Did this sentence come out the way you meant it to? It's a bit of a mind bender, but it seems to amount to all Middle Eastern oil exporters stopping all sales of oil. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but I'm still very fuzzy on what it is you did mean to say
( ... )
Comments 6
The conclusion of globalism is that most of the countries the U.S. has trading deficits with have more to trade for that oil. We don't export metal ores, fruits and vegetables, or consumer electronics. We don't export appliances, we don't export cars that are easy to fix, or electronic generators that are easy to fix.
Reply
I don't think I understand the point you're making. What you've posted seems like two paragraphs out of the middle of a longer post that establishes context. I'll be happy to read as much as you care to post, or if you want to post a link to something you've written elsewhere, I'll be happy to read it.
Reply
I listened to the audio file you had posted. It mentioned a scenario where a dirty bomb would shut down production of oil in saudi arabia. Western reaction to this spurred other oil exporters in the region to halt exports. Then banks started failing and riots ensued in cities all over.
In this particular scenario I believe it would be possible for the oil exporters of the Middle East to simply boycott selling oil to places other than the ones they are boycotting.
Thanks to globalism there are plenty of developed and developing countries that have more to offer in trade than the U.S. does have to trade. At least, in terms of material goods if not dollar bills.
Reply
In this particular scenario I believe it would be possible for the oil exporters of the Middle East to simply boycott selling oil to places other than the ones they are boycotting.Did this sentence come out the way you meant it to? It's a bit of a mind bender, but it seems to amount to all Middle Eastern oil exporters stopping all sales of oil. I don't think that's what you meant to say, but I'm still very fuzzy on what it is you did mean to say ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment