|
Leperflesh posted:Probably the various non-US countries aren't excited about putting hundreds of flight hours onto their only carrier-capable planes just to interdict Libyan airspace, either. The US has a lot of planes, so it can afford to cycle through them and could put up a no-fly zone while still having planes to spare for its other missions worldwide. The UK and France could do it, based out of France or Cyprus. No need for a carrier.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
YOURFRIEND posted:Didn't oil speculation used to be illegal? They should do that again. This would be the perfect time for Obama to push energy policy reform so the fifty cent jumps would stop happening so much. Oddly enough, most of the people bitching about expensive gas were the same ones back in 2005 defending Bush from it. Some things never loving change. But right now, revisiting our energy policy is a very good idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Petey posted:Some economists have put as much as 60% of the cost of oil at the pump is actually just inflation based on these futures speculations, as opposed to a more "natural" price more closely related to supply/demand. The price that reflects how much of something we have left and how much we can expect to have in the future is the "natural" price and the price that reflects supply and demand. A price that didn't would be insanity and would represent a gross mismanagement of resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:The UK and France could do it, based out of France or Cyprus. No need for a carrier. Corsica and Cyprus are about 1300-1500 km away from Benghazi. Meanwhile the Libyan coast is about 1200 km wide. Now if we look at eg. the Eurofighter Typhoon's combat radius: * Air defence with 3-hr CAP: 185 km (100 nmi) * Air defence with 10-min loiter: 1,389 km (750 nmi) Oops. There are alternatives like extra tanks or air refueling, so ultimately it COULD be done, but it would be extremely difficult and expensive compared to a carrier force parked right off the coast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
I haven't seen this posted in this thread yet, and it seems like something that shouldn't be under the radar: Egypt faces new turmoil: Looted state security files quote:CAIRO — Less than a month after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's caretaker government faces a new crisis: what to do about thousands of documents that protesters seized from State Security offices over the weekend. Apparently these files are being passed along like crazy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
 Yes, this all boils down to your stocks and gas prices. This same person yesterday posted something along the lines of "Great, Clinton supports Al-Jazeera." Why does everyone I know have to be so stupid. 
bango skank fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Mr Plow posted:The price that reflects how much of something we have left and how much we can expect to have in the future is the "natural" price and the price that reflects supply and demand. A price that didn't would be insanity and would represent a gross mismanagement of resources. Read my post again.I agree with you. The problem is that the current spike is unrelated to a shift In either supply or demand. it is a function of commodities speculation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Rooney McNibnug posted:Apparently these files are being passed along like crazy. I don't speak Arabic, so I can't tell what they're about, but this facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/AmnDawlaLeaks - has been constantly dumping for days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Mr Plow posted:The price that reflects how much of something we have left and how much we can expect to have in the future is the "natural" price and the price that reflects supply and demand. A price that didn't would be insanity and would represent a gross mismanagement of resources. This is true, but it's only a price that reflects that when the market is responding to reasonable concerns and projections about future situations. Instead, what you usually have is the situation like a few years ago, where what people were actually expecting were based on ideas like "climate change means we're going to have refinery-seeking super-hurricanes every summer forever", or "Yeah, Bush is going to invade Iran next any moment, just watch", together with a good heavy implication of "running out of oil is just like running out of beer, you know, reach into the cooler and there's none there." With billions of profits to be made from amping that fear up. For all that oil is a finite resource with huge demand with little short-term flexibility, the situation still has got a lot in common with Glenn Beck selling gold futures on the grounds that the dollar is going to be worthless any day now while gold is going to keep going up forever, or that guy on the shopping channel telling you that these Star Trek: Enterprise commemorative plates are selling fast and they're not making any more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Corsica and Cyprus are about 1300-1500 km away from Benghazi. Meanwhile the Libyan coast is about 1200 km wide. Now if we look at eg. the Eurofighter Typhoon's combat radius: On the other hand, Souda Air Base on Crete looks (eyeballing it on Google Maps) to be a rather more reasonable ~350km. There are already Greek F-16s operating out of it so I presume it could handle Eurofighters and Rafales just fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Petey posted:Read my post again.I agree with you. The problem is that the current spike is unrelated to a shift In either supply or demand. it is a function of commodities speculation. Well, to be fair, the commodities speculators are speculating that the price for the commodity will rise due to future drop in supply. Turmoil in the middle east threatens the regularity and quantity of oil deliveries from those countries, and any hint of turmoil within Saudi Arabia underlines those concerns. So while it does not seem to make sense for today's gas prices to be higher just because gas in the future might cost more, it does make sense for oil commodities futures to be rising. There is a relationship there. It's still frustrating to know that I'm paying more at the pump in California for gasoline made from oil that was pumped out of the ground weeks or months ago and refined days ago at local refineries in california that are not running low on supply by any means. But Chevron or Exxon or BP or whoever, are paying up front for actual future delivery of oil to their refineries. They are paying prices that are rising based on speculation that supply may drop, and as a result they're raising prices at the pump to compensate (and protect their gigantic obscene profits, of course). And that's how oil futures prices cause instant changes in at-the-pump gasoline prices.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:This is true, but it's only a price that reflects that when the market is responding to reasonable concerns and projections about future situations. I agree, which is why I take some issue with the blanket assertion that speculation is bad that seemed to be floating around a page back, but I also acknowledge that speculation can be unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Dumb question, but what happens to all the extra money they're making from raising prices if it turns out they're wrong? Do they have to re-invest it to lower future prices or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Narmi posted:Dumb question, but what happens to all the extra money they're making from raising prices if it turns out they're wrong? Do they have to re-invest it to lower future prices or something? Well, no - Chevron gets to keep its profits (and/or distribute them to its shareholders). But the "them" that are making money from futures speculation is mostly people who have brokerage accounts, institutional investors, and huge investment banks. Chevron has to actually pay for oil to be delivered, but $random_fatcat can speculate on the prices of oil delivery contracts without ever actually having oil delivered to his mansion or whatever. Which is what people (in the thread) are talking about shutting down; obviously oil companies still have to make contracts with oil sellers dictating how much they'll pay for a tanker of oil to be delivered to the Port of New Orleans 30 days from now. But, that commerce does not strictly require everyone else in the world to be allowed to buy and sell those contracts. Of course, then you get into a different kettle of fish, where without that large market, it becomes much easier for big oil companies and producers and etc. to engage in price-fixing. Or governments have to step in to fix prices, which leads to other pricing "inefficiencies" (read, either massive subsidies, or state-mandated massive profits). Plus that'd be Regulation and as we all know, Regulation Is Bad (according to the right). Free Markets are better! The odds of a serious political move to stop global speculation on oil right now are basically 0. The entrenched interests and international scope would make it all but impossible, and it's certainly politically impossible. You'd sooner see a government subsidy for poor people's heating oil or a reduction in federal gas taxes or something like that. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, to be fair, the commodities speculators are speculating that the price for the commodity will rise due to future drop in supply. I don't think we know that necessarily. This wasn't the case at all just before the GFC, when oil was well over $100 / barrel with no supply shocks of any kind. That was entirely speculative. While we don't have any evidence one way or the other, I'm inclined to presume that this largely is too. Mr Plow posted:I agree, which is why I take some issue with the blanket assertion that speculation is bad that seemed to be floating around a page back, but I also acknowledge that speculation can be unreasonable. Speculation is bad. Full stop. There is some reason to hedge occasionally. There were legitimate uses for interest rate swaps too. But that's not what any of this is. This is banks being casinos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Narmi posted:Dumb question, but what happens to all the extra money they're making from raising prices if it turns out they're wrong? Do they have to re-invest it to lower future prices or something? hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. it will trickle down, don't worry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
Petey posted:I don't think we know that necessarily. This wasn't the case at all just before the GFC, when oil was well over $100 / barrel with no supply shocks of any kind. That was entirely speculative. While we don't have any evidence one way or the other, I'm inclined to presume that this largely is too. Um, have you seen the headlines? Apparently there's some unrest going on in some of those sandy hot oil places. That's about all the evidence you'd need, to guess that oil prices are rising based on speculation that oil production might fall in the near future. e. Petey posted:Speculation is bad. Full stop. There is some reason to hedge occasionally. There were legitimate uses for interest rate swaps too. But that's not what any of this is. This is banks being casinos. That is, and I mean this with respect, utter nonsense. "Speculation is always bad" is brazenly ignorant of how the modern global economy has formed over the last 10,000 years from a beginnings in humble agriculture that allowed human settlement to take place and people to start speculating on what the future will bring. "Speculation" is just a derogatory way of saying "investment". Speculation is buying a thing that you believe will go up in value. (Or selling a thing you believe will fall in value.) Oil futures contracts may seem quite divorced from the reality of oil tankers delivering oil, but they are intrinsically linked and the former arises from the latter being made a public marketplace. I invest in my 401(k) because I am speculating that stock prices will rise and I'll have more money when I retire than if I'd just stuffed it all in a mattress. And as a direct result of my "speculation", companies have operating capital to do things like make widgets and sell hamburgers and sell bombs to warmongers and lobby congress and pay corporate taxes and provide jobs and all the other horrible and great things that create the modern world that allows us to argue on the internet. Without "speculation" we'd still be hunter-gatherers. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well, to be fair, the commodities speculators are speculating that the price for the commodity will rise due to future drop in supply. Turmoil in the middle east threatens the regularity and quantity of oil deliveries from those countries, and any hint of turmoil within Saudi Arabia underlines those concerns. What's also a shame (according to a dude on PBS Newshour) is that as part of the Republican written cuts, the body tasked with overseeing commodity speculators and reining excessive speculation is having their budget cut by a third. Thank you, Republicans!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Um, have you seen the headlines? Apparently there's some unrest going on in some of those sandy hot oil places. Except that the oil prices were already rising before the Saudi Arabian news, midway through the Libyan crisis, even though the Libyan crisis was not commensurate in severity with the severity of the price shocks, largely because people were running around insane on Wall Street rather than actually trying to figure out what a reasonable impact on supply and demand might be. I mean I know you're being somewhat facetious here, but I'm trying to point out that there is a lot of inflation in oil commodities / futures / etc (as there are in other commodities markets and derivatives) and it has very little to do with actual conditions on the ground than with trading floor jackoffery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Petey I just wrote an edit up above for you to check out as well, but I'll just say this: it is not as clear cut as you would like to portray it. Because of inflexible demand, the loss of Libya's 2% contribution to global supply can easily lead to real prices rising 50%. And even two weeks ago, it was clear that unrest had spread beyond the original two countries, making it not at all unreasonable to think that it might spread further. Gamblers on the futures markets are indeed a problem. But there is no easy solution. Simply eliminating the public's access to futures markets is not a very good way to make things better. Public access was granted in the first place to get rid of price fixing and backroom deals and let "the market" find the "correct" price for commodities in a way that everyone could see and track and take part in. e. Let me try and be nicer and just say that the instantaneous nature of news, combined with computerized modern trading, makes it possible for massive moves in price to occur in seconds based on reports of any kind. That is true across all modern markets, for stocks as well as commodities and futures and options. It is a problem because there is an irresistible opportunity to make money by being the fastest on the uptake whenever change is occurring, and as a result, you can get volumes of trading and rapid price swings that could never have occurred 20 years ago. So unlike a real-estate bubble that takes years to form, commodities bubbles can form in hours. But nobody should realistically argue that this run up in oil prices is a bubble, yet, because there is a very real risk of serious and long-term interruption of oil production in the near future. And the near-future is precisely where oil futures are looking. The unfortunate thing isn't that oil futures exist, or that they're climbing rapidly; it's that (well aside from people dying and a struggle for freedom and evil dictators) gasoline and energy prices in general are so responsive to futures pricing. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Live Blogs 8th March Guardian AJE
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 10:46
|
|
|
Summary from the Guardianquote:Here's a summary of events so far today: Some more recent updates Ras Lanuf: quote:The BBC's John Simpson in Ras Lanuf says there is a lot of firing going on all around. There has been at least four bombing raids in a small stretch of area around the crossroads in Ras Lanuf. In one case a member of his team was blown off his feet but not harmed, he added. Zawiyah quote:In the west of Libya, the rebel held towns of Zawiya is reported to be under artillery attack. It has been hard to get through to anyone in the city, but Libyan Murad Hamaima in Cairo told the BBC World Service his relatives in the city have told him on the phone that they "are under constant bombardement" and that some members of his family have been killed and others have been injured. Mr Hamaima, a former official in the Libyan Foreign Ministry who defected to the opposition, says it is his understanding that the rebels still control the centre of Zawiya. "But Gaddafi's security forces, his militias, are everywhere in the streets, doing house-to-house searches and rounding up people." quote:Mr Hamaima also said there have been reports that rebels have captured several pro-government soldiers who said they had orders from Gaddafi to "take Zawiya at any price. I think he will take it or destroy it. The situation is very dangerous." quote:Peter Beaumont from the Observer tweets: "Yesterday on road to Zawiyah saw Libyan paratroopers searching police and army vehicles entering Tripoli. Clearly don't trust other units" Bin Jawad quote:Libyan state TV is showing handcuffed and blindfolded men captured in Bin Jawad area, the BBC's Arabic Service says. The TV says they are gangs members supported by al-Qaeda. It is showing their confessions too. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 14:26
|
|
|
AJE is reporting that the Organization Of The Islamic Conference have released a press statement calling for air embargo of Libya.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
What could be another important update:quote:Gaddafi will not be pursued by the opposition when he leaves power if he leaves within 72 hours and stops the bombing, the head of Libya's transitional council, Mustafa Muhammad Abd-al-Jalil, has said, al-Jazeera reports.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:What could be another important update: I wonder what they mean by "pursue" though. They've been saying that they don't want to give him an honourable exit, or let him retain his assets, so they could be telling him to get out now and they won't pursue him legally, or they could mean they won't send their forces after him, or even execute him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Without "speculation" we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
Narmi posted:I wonder what they mean by "pursue" though. They've been saying that they don't want to give him an honourable exit, or let him retain his assets, so they could be telling him to get out now and they won't pursue him legally, or they could mean they won't send their forces after him, or even execute him. It would hardly be an offer if it didn't mean that they would not seek his extradition for trial afterwards. Although since this is Libya I suppose it could be also construed as "we won't send thugs to assassinate you abroad", but I would doubt that they would stoop to Gaddafi's level like that. Basically the rebels are not going to oust CG immediately by force, so they must offer something for him to consider leaving the country. They may not want to, but it would be a drat less violent option right now. The big question is how willing the Gaddafi family is to take such an offer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Gamblers on the futures markets are indeed a problem. But there is no easy solution. Bullshit, tax it. People who make money speculating on commodities who never take delivery suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
ChuckHead posted:Bullshit, tax it. People who make money speculating on commodities who never take delivery suck. oh yes, make the commodity market illiquid, what a great idea
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:It would hardly be an offer if it didn't mean that they would not seek his extradition for trial afterwards. Although since this is Libya I suppose it could be also construed as "we won't send thugs to assassinate you abroad", but I would doubt that they would stoop to Gaddafi's level like that. This is what I was getting at, but like I said, the term "pursue" is pretty vague and can be interpreted different ways, especially given the number of people who want to see his head on a pike. In any case my point is moot since I looked it up, and it's definitely the former. quote:Rebels will not pursue Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi over crimes they say he has committed if he steps down from his post in the next 72 hours, the head of the rebel National Libyan Council has told Al Jazeera. source I guess my question now is that if he accepts this deal, does it mean the ICC won't be able to prosecute him? And what about the army officers and officials who sided with him? Unless they're included, they probably won't be too happy seeing him get off scot-free while they're left holding the bag. Narmi fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
My understanding is that as Libya isn't a member of the ICC they need to request that individuals are prosecuted in the ICC. However, there's no mention of the ICC not going after army officers who commanded troops, or anything like that, so they still could be punished. It's a pragmatic solution rather than a just solution, the difference between a quick resolution to the conflict, or a drawn out civil war with a very high cost to Libya regardless of the winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Just remember that there is nothing to guarantee that such a contract is respected after CG has stepped down, just like General Pinochet was put to trial even though he specially rigged the Chilean constitution to give himself immunity for all his crimes. Both sides know this, and it may very well also prevent Gaddafi from taking the deal unless he can trust on some other crazy despot to guarantee his safety. Too bad for him he's not a personal friend of Maggie Thatcher! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't hold up their end of the deal (not like Gaddafi would ever take it). Even if the transitional government was willing to honour it, the people would be crying for blood, and considering what Gaddafi has done I wouldn't blame them. Also is it wrong that I think the Chileans pursuing Pinochet even after he's rigged the constitution to give him immunity funny? He apparently believes that if something is written on a piece of paper it has some magical power to make an entire country filled with people that hate you suddenly become powerless to break down your door and stomp you to death. The only sad part of that story really is the fact that Pinochet actually did get away. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:09
|
|
|
Rooney McNibnug posted:I haven't seen this posted in this thread yet, and it seems like something that shouldn't be under the radar: I'm sorry but Gmail is SSL secured, how exactly do they obtain transcripts of something like that? Is the content unsecured when you send it, did they get it from an unsecured source destination, or did Gmail give them access?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:I'm sorry but Gmail is SSL secured, how exactly do they obtain transcripts of something like that? Is the content unsecured when you send it, did they get it from an unsecured source destination, or did Gmail give them access? It's entirely possible that they just obtained her password somehow and periodically logged into her account and wrote down everything there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:'m sorry but Gmail is SSL secured, how exactly do they obtain transcripts of something like that? Is the content unsecured when you send it, did they get it from an unsecured source destination, or did Gmail give them access? gmail hasn't always been ssl only. And yes, if you have access to someones internet connection there's a very good chance you'll get their log in information because they use the same for everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
Zawiyah sounds like it's having the poo poo kicked out of it today, loads of shelling and shooting, snipers everywhere, tanks and artillery. It seems to back up the rebels claims that captured soldiers had said they were ordered to capture Zawiyah by Wednesday by any and all methods, and at any cost.quote:Reuters quotes a resident as saying pro-Gaddafi forces are using tanks and aircraft to attack the rebel-held town of Zawiya quote:The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tripoli says people in Zawiya have reported fierce battles with pro-Gaddafi troops all day - they arrived with 50 tanks and 120 pick-up trucks. "I don't know how many are dead - Zawiya, they tore it down to ashes," one source told our correspondent. quote:Witnesses said a five-year-old child was among the dead in Zawiya, reportedly killed when militia burst into the house to put snipers on the roof. quote:Ibrahim, a resident of Zawiya, told Reuters: "Fighting is still going on now. Gaddafi's forces are using tanks. There are also sporadic air strikes. ... But they could not reach the centre of the town which is still in the control of the revolutionaries". quote:The BBC's Wyre Davies in Tripoli says news of the attack on Zawiya is coming from a source well known to the BBC. The man had had to drive several kilometres out of the city to be able to telephone with the information. quote:A Libyan in London who has spoken to family in Zawiya who described a heavy bombardment of the city. The family had fled to the outskirts of the city to escape and said Zawiya had been "wiped off the face of the Earth". quote:The family also said the pro-Gaddafi troops had been firing indiscriminately. quote:"Access to Zawiya has been promised for three days and it has never materialised, despite government claims to have taken it back," says our correspondent. "I spent three hours detained by paratroopers yesterday on my way to Zawiya, despite claims that we were free to travel where we please. I was sent back to Tripoli." quote:More from Zawiya, where appears to be under a major attack from regime troops. A witness in the city told BBC Arabic that a shower of bullets is hitting every building in the city. Rebel fighters there are claiming to have killed a high ranking pro-Gaddafi officer during the clashes. quote:The Guardian's Peter Beaumont tweets: "My source in Zawiyah unreachable since yesterday. Sounds very very grim...All evidence we are hearing sounds like something awful in Zawiyah."
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
Life in Libya is going to be incredibly lovely for a good while after this, no matter the outcome. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Has there been any major group in the Arab world arguing against a no fly zone? I don't see why we need to wait for a UN mandate when everyone in the region is calling for someone to step up and stem the bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
Intel5 posted:Has there been any major group in the Arab world arguing against a no fly zone? Well, I'm pretty sure Ghadaffi is probably against it. Or maybe he thinks it will defend him against the Moon Locusts, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 19:04
|
|
