Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros?:Catostrophe for the US? The REAL reason we went to war?
Global Policy Forum ^ | October 10, 2003 | By Catherine Belton

Posted on 05/15/2005 5:14:47 AM PDT by RaceBannon

Putin: Why Not Price Oil in Euros? By Catherine Belton Moscow Times October 10, 2003

President Vladimir Putin said Thursday Russia could switch its trade in oil from dollars to euros, a move that could have far-reaching repercussions for the global balance of power -- potentially hurting the U.S. dollar and economy and providing a massive boost to the euro zone. "We do not rule out that it is possible. That would be interesting for our European partners," Putin said at a joint news conference with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the Urals town of Yekaterinburg, where the two leaders conducted two-day talks. "But this does not depend solely on us. We do not want to hurt prices on the market," he said. "Putin's putting a big card on the table," said Youssef Ibrahim, managing director of the Strategic Energy Investment Group in Dubai and a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, an influential body of leading world thinkers thought to help set the United States' foreign policy agenda. "In the context of what is happening worldwide, this statement is very important," he said.

Putin's words come in the wake of a protracted drive by the EU to attract more countries' trade and currency reserves into euros, in a bid to chip away at U.S. hegemony over the global economy and money supply. A move by Russia, as the world's second largest oil exporter, to trade oil in euros, could provoke a chain reaction among other oil producers currently mulling a switch and would further boost the euro's gradually growing share of global currency reserves. That would be a huge boon to the euro zone economy and potentially catastrophic for the United States. Dollar-based global oil trade now gives the United States carte blanche to print dollars without sparking inflation -- to fund huge expenses on wars, military build-ups, and consumer spending, as well as cut taxes and run up huge trade deficits.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bankruptcy; currency; dollar; energyprices; euro; oil; scam; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last
To: cynicom
There is one trump card that is held by the US, in case of dire necessity, the US can seize the oil fields of the ME. If that were to happen, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

In a way, we just did! :)

81 posted on 05/15/2005 2:38:09 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
2. If you make the Euro the world currency and the oil fields of the Middle East are taken over or destroyed, there is no basis for the Euro as a currency as the EU has NO energy supply that could maintain its people or keep them from freezing or starving to death.

The Arabs would use the same curency as the country they took over, dont ya think?

4. I know of no other nation that can withstand a total collapse of the oil supply except for the United States.

Russia, easily.

82 posted on 05/15/2005 2:40:20 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
the skyrocketing value of the Euro

What's the shape of that supply curve?

83 posted on 05/15/2005 2:44:52 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways
"Oil represents about 2% of the daily transactions in US dollars, so the article's premise is bogus."

I have no clue where you got that number.

My knowledge tells me it is less than 1%.

Anyway, this article is bogus.

84 posted on 05/15/2005 2:50:30 PM PDT by AGreatPer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
Because when we bought oil, even if we paid in Euros, those saudis or whomever would probably want some dollars. so they'd convert those euros back into dollars. Right now, they get dollars, and they probably convert some into Euros, some into Swiss Francs, etc...

That's not how it works.

In order to purchase the oil, you need to purchase in dollars, not Euros.

That means currency exchange, and that is not done in thin air, there has to be that currency available to exchange.

THAT means that currency has to be physically present in some bank to be drawn upon.

In order for that to happen, the money has to be solvent, not just printed, and for that large enough of a currency to be the WORLD'S trading currency, the originating nation must be solvent, and the trading of this currency is one of the reasons it IS solvent.

To remove the Dollars from the trading cycle of the world, means that the economy of the entire country is at stake because there is no more world wide trading of Dollars to keep the money system fluid.

Not enough of the world buys our stuff anymore, so, trade wont doit, especially with the trade deficeits we have.

That is why thisis an issue.

One other thing, just imagine what investors in our bonds and stocks would do, knowing that our economy is going downhill due to the switch to the Euro? They will pull their money out as fast as they can. THAT will hasten the demise of our economy.

This is not just a game of what if: This was suggested in the mid-90's also.

85 posted on 05/15/2005 2:50:44 PM PDT by RaceBannon ((Prov 28:1 KJV) The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dubya's fan
We went to Iraq to free its people so that they became an example for the peoples in the Middle East.

Umm, no.

SOTU 2003

The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

The first and foremost reason given for months. Do you not remember poor Colin Powell having to give that ridiculous speech at the UN? Complete with transfer truck labs and suggestions of underground 'garages' of WMDs? Freeing the Iraqi people was a somewhat excuse but nothing gets the peoples riled like threats of WMDs.

As for your nonsensical going to Iraq to 'free its people' I suggest you reread Adams' advice that is still, even more so, true today.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Of course don't let such words and beliefs mislead you from your 'conservative' principles.

86 posted on 05/15/2005 3:01:30 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Thanks for the post. Have seen this argument elsewhere. Has some good information.


87 posted on 05/15/2005 3:02:32 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: M-cubed
but whats good for me is...I charged 1% to print it!...even if u figure it out and pool ALL the money in existence... U can NEVER pay off the 1% debt to me...*G* it doest exist!!!.... I OWN YA!..Game, set, and match!

Which is where the counterfeiter comes in with his superdollars and saves the day by printing surplus fiat at 0% interest!

88 posted on 05/15/2005 3:05:00 PM PDT by Useless_eater_on_steroids
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve
"We went to war for oil."

That I one big lie. Another left-wing fascist Nazi democrat.
89 posted on 05/15/2005 3:41:48 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

We did in fact, but not real terms. China is building bases along the route from ME in case we decide to interdict their oil. There are a lot of chess moves going on. EU rages about the US in Iraq in public but in private they are quite content for us to be there.


90 posted on 05/15/2005 4:03:11 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT
That is NOT my quote and please don't do that again.

The lefty line is that we went to war to steal the oil out of the ground. That's not my premise at all.

We didn't go to war to free the people of Rwanda, or the people of Syria or the people of Belgian congo. We have no national interests in those countries.

But we do have a national interest in ensuring that oil is flowing. We didn't go to Iraq to steal their oil as the libs tell it.

But, among other reasons, we DID go to Iraq to turn on the spigots and increase the amount of oil in world markets in order to keep prices at a reasonable level and to stem the tide of money flowing into the magical kingdom of SA.

If you don't believe that, you're living in a fantasyland.

91 posted on 05/15/2005 4:20:49 PM PDT by America's Resolve (Liberal Democrats are liars, cheats and thieves with no morals, scruples, ethics or honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Dubya's fan
Don't believe the liberal mantra "war for oil".

How can you be so confident that it might not be the next excuse? ;o)

92 posted on 05/15/2005 5:06:15 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

What's a pop-up ad? ;o)


93 posted on 05/15/2005 5:12:33 PM PDT by iconoclast (Conservative, not partisan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast

A pop-up ad is something I am afflicted with from time to time because of sites my husband visits. Usually I can get rid of them, but this one happened to surface ysterday, which struck me as odd given the nature of the story I am reading today.


94 posted on 05/15/2005 5:20:25 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

Know of any locations of Chinese bases being built?


95 posted on 05/15/2005 7:57:48 PM PDT by hripka (There are a lot of smart people out there in FReeperLand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I suggest you reread Adams' advice that is still, even more so, true today.

The Founding Fathers would support WOT if they were alive nowadays, just like Thomas Jefferson sent ships to the Mediterranean because of the pirates' blackmail and attacks on American ships. America was attacked then and America responded then.

America was attacked on 9/11 (and it was the worst attack against the USA in history) and America is responding since. If liberating Iraq, the Middle East becomes freer (I mean freedom spreads through that region, that is a fact), the terrorists lose their main harbor and breeding ground.

In short, if President Jefferson responded to the pirates (whose attacks are not comparable to the 9/11 attack), what would he have done now? He would have supported President Bush and the WOT clearly.

Of course don't let such words and beliefs mislead you from your 'conservative' principles.

Thomas Jefferson would be conservative nowadays and stand with President Bush, America and freedom; not with the liberals or the isolationist libertarians.
96 posted on 05/16/2005 3:02:39 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: America's Resolve
We didn't go to war to free the people of Rwanda, or the people of Syria or the people of Belgian congo. We have no national interests in those countries...

But, among other reasons, we DID go to Iraq to turn on the spigots and increase the amount of oil in world markets in order to keep prices at a reasonable level and to stem the tide of money flowing into the magical kingdom of SA.


America freed the Iraqi people because of the main national interest of every nation in the world: security. It's a matter of national security that the terrorists lose their breeding ground: the Middle East. Everybody thought Saddam had WMDs and everybody knew he was one of the most terrorist dictator in the region: if a symbol of the terrorist tyranny falls in the Middle East and is replaced by democracy and hope, it will become a symbol of the new Middle East.

If you don't believe that, you're living in a fantasyland.

If you believe some parts of the "war for oil" mantra, you're living in Michael Moore's fantasyland.
97 posted on 05/16/2005 3:17:22 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: hripka

Pakistan and Indonesia


98 posted on 05/16/2005 3:29:27 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Dubya's fan
The Founding Fathers would support WOT if they were alive nowadays, just like Thomas Jefferson sent ships to the Mediterranean because of the pirates' blackmail and attacks on American ships. America was attacked then and America responded then.

The United States was not attacked by Iraq however. After reading your entire statement, I realize you can't fit Adams statement of not 'spreading democracy' into any argument justifying Bush's invasion of Iraq. Bush is doing exactly what Adams warned against. I also realize you haven't apparently read any of the other Framers' opinions. But to be a Republican, all you need is to invoke the name and forget what they said, isn't it?

99 posted on 05/16/2005 6:48:46 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I realize you can't fit Adams statement of not 'spreading democracy' into any argument justifying Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Then-President Jefferson didn't need to democratize the North of Africa to defeat the pirates. Now it's necessary. Freedom is the only weapon against terrorism in the long run. If Washington, Jefferson, Adams, J.Q. Adams, etc lived nowadays would support that strategy for a simple reason: it's the only way to defeat terrorism and win the WOT. The WOT is different war from the rest.
100 posted on 05/16/2005 7:38:33 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson