Michael Fitzsimmons

World Oil Snapshot: Big Picture and Investable Advice

AlanVon: i appreaciate the cameo appearance in your article. however, as far as government mandates for natural gas are concerned, i'd simply like the US gov to either level the playing field with coal and oil (both of which have been effectively and substantially subsidized for decades) or at least get out of the way with respect to natural gas transportation. those of us who feel that the economic, enviornmental, and national security issues the US is suffering as a result of our 60% addiction to foreign oil feel natural gas transportation fueled by US produced natural gas is the best solution to this crisis. you may infer that this is a "nutty" idea, but what is really "nutty" is anyone who ignores the reality of peak oil, the impact $145/dollar a barrel oil had on the US, and a future in which a country that depends on foreign oil faces when worldwide supply won't keep up with worldwide demand. so, in the future, if you are going to patronize me, at least be constructive enough to present your own solution to the US oil crisis. otherwise, i'll have the same opinion of you that you apparently have of me. you say "oil is irreplaceable as a transportation fuel". that is a ridiculous and unfactual statement.

Pick Your Favorite Petro-Fascist

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

Oil, Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Way Forward (Part II)

rant: there are 5 permanant members of the UN Security council (not 7) and i listed them for you. as far as iraq being a sovereign nation, i believe that may have ended with the US invasion and occupation. actually, it probably ended before that when the US initially installed Sadam Hussein as their puppet, but i digress from the issue at hand which is what to do about iraq as of today. i am glad you find me amusing...i wish i could find something amusing about the current situation in iraq.

ex-diplomat: perhaps i am ignorant of how international relations work. that said, i scarely believe i could do worse that the present administration has done over the past 7 years. i couldn't if i tried. wrt other countries agreeing to "bail out the US", you miss the main point of the proposal: they are not bailing us out, they will agree to contribute on both a military and civilian basis in order to *share in the oil*. as far as the argument wrt GDP, i hear the same old arguments to explain away the huge fiscal deficits the so called "MBA Republican Dream Team" have run up. (wasn't it democrats who were supposed to spend like that?) perhaps i am off my marbles on all this but you surely must agree some important economic data does support my positions: the price of oil, the precipitous fall in the value of the US dollar, the current inflation rate, and the performance of US equity markets. i don't even want to get into the bear stearns saga, and what the consequences of the proposed "re-regulation" of the Federal reserve will entail. that is for another article, which i am sure my fans will be looking forward to. in the meantime, perhaps you should read naomi klein's book: "the shock doctrine". you may find it enlightening. afterwards, you can explain to me what you mean by "win" in iraq and what your expected timeline is for "winning" based on an analysis of the last 5 years' effort. McCain is ready to stay 100 years, are you? actually, i am sure it won't be 100 years - all the oil will surely have been pumped by then. thanks.

Oil, Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Way Forward (Part II)

canuck: you say the iraqi people may have something to say about my proposal, true enough. but do the iraqi people currently have anything to say about what the US has done and is doing in their country? at this point, the iraqis just might be ameniable to a plan which is bilateral, makes them all wealthy, and restores basic infrastructure to their county. right now, polls show the majority of iraqis want america to get out, so if your concern is the rights of the iraqi people, you must be for an immediate American withdrawal.

rant: the article IS about economics. do you not think american policy in iraq has anything to do with the current price of oil, the huge drop in the value of the US dollar, rising inflation, or the fact that the S&P500 has done nothing during the Bush administration? In fact, once adjusted for inflation & the fall of the US dollar, the S&P500 has very much been a losing investments the last 7 years. Who is being naive here? The best place to make money in the Bush years was ENERGY, which I have been pounded the table on for years for two reasons: 1) peak oil 2) Bush fiscal and foreign policy.

In addition, it would not be HAL and TOT that would negotiate the contracts, it would be the 7 countries of the UN Security Council working with the Iraqi government and the oil services companies that would negotiate the contracts. It would be done in a very transparent process, with the exception that perhaps America would be repaid some of the billions (trillions say some) that have been wasted so far.