|
1.
https://www.quora.com/How-would-the-global-economy-be-affected-if-global-oil-production-was-reduced/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1 How would the global economy be affected if global oil production was reduced? Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) Answered 11m ago Whenever crude oil production is reduced for whatever reason, the price of crude, and then of petroleum distillates, such as petrol, goes up. Trump keeps saying he is happy when Saudi helps reduce prices by keeping up a brisk crude oil production rate and hence keeping the price low. But Trump is being coy. He pretends he wants low prices for his voters but the fact is, he wants high prices for his cronies in the oil industry. Why? Because US oil producers are generally drilling in shale and to extract this oil, they must use a very expensive process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This process drives up production costs, which means the sale price must be higher to make extraction profitable. And recall that Trump is betting on hydrocarbons to help make America great, so this scheme just has to work or Trump will be in trouble. So if OPEC or Russia decided to extract more than usual, then prices would go down and the US producers would not be happy, and Trump would be in a sour mood. He might even threaten to attack Iran. Again. So he is trying desperately to persuade oil producing countries to keep prices up while pretending he wants lower prices for this voters. All politicians play these kinds of games so it’s not just Trump. So back to to the question of how all this affects the global economy. As we have seen, it is complicated: Reduced production means higher oil prices. Oil producing countries would be affected positively with regard to their profits, but all countries would pay more for their petrol. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. So the leaders of the oil producing countries would all have to pretend they were upset that their people – the ones they are pretending to work for – have to pay too much for petrol at the pump but would be warmly thanked by their cronies in the industry – the ones they are really working for. 2. Why are EU citizens not allowed to seek asylum within EU countries if they have real problems? What is the conspiracy behind this law? Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) Answered Mon The EU is supported by a narrative that is far from representative of the true situation. The narrative is that the EU is unified and that all member states have laws protecting the rights of its citizens. But there are problems. For example, if anyone in Germany makes a statement, even a true one, that reflects badly on Israel or is perceived as offensive to a Jew (or other ethnic or religious group), that person can be punished for Volksverhetzung, “incitement of the people.” Fr. Frederick Toben, a British historian who wrote a book denying aspects of the Holocaust, was actually arrested in the UK under this German law and was nearly extradited to Germany where he would have been tried and sentenced to jail. (Let me state here that I am no follower of Toben. I have visited Auschwitz and was shocked at what I saw.) You can read about this law here (pay attention to the reader comments): Why Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany This law exists only — or primarily — in Germany and often leads to the unjust jailing of an innocent researcher who had no intention of offending anyone but who found evidence that the accepted number of 6 million may be exaggerated. (Indeed, controversy still rages over this question). But if this accused researcher lived in another EU state that does not have this law, he would not be allowed to seek asylum in his own country. The reason is simple: the EU narrative is that all EU countries have harmonized their national laws with EU law in such a way as to produce uniform justice throughout the union and no injustice exists in the legal systems of any EU member states. If one EU country could afford asylum to a person in another EU country who was threatened with jail time for doing something that is perfectly legal in that other country, then this would expose the narrative as untrue. Therefore, the EU has banned such offering of asylum. That is just one of several such examples. 3. Is Iran just too big for the US military to occupy (were it so inclined to try)? Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) Answered Sun Israeli geopolitical analyst Yakov Kedmi recently stated (Кедми: Для США начать войну в Иране — это значит отдать Тайвань Китаю) that the United States cannot defeat Iran from a purely military point of view due to the vastness of its territory and the inability of the Americans to land there due to the incredible complexity of logistics that the Pentagon is well aware of. I would add to this that Iran has warned of its ability to take out US aircraft carriers with its guided missiles and torpedoes fired from subs. The following article iran has subs and torpedoes discusses Iranian naval assets: The subs have sonar-evading technology and can launch missiles from under water, as well as fire torpedoes and drop marine mines, the TV said. Iran began manufacturing Ghadir subs in 2005. The first was unveiled in 2007 and by 2012, five such submarines were incorporated into Iran's navy. Trump knows that if he presides over the loss of a multimillion dollar carrier, his chances of winning in 2020 are diminished. I doubt he will try it, although the Israelis have admitted they want the US to fight alongside them, as I showed at Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-Syria-still-a-threat-to-lsrael/answer/Vince-Dhimos In case you have forgotten, Netanyahu was one of the ringleaders in dragging the US into the war on Iran. Here you can see him pleading his case before the US Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY Israel has never gone to war against terror but is always willing to shed American blood for its wars. 4. https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-view-the-Sino-US-trade-war/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1 How do you view the Sino-US trade war? Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present) Answered Mon It is a disaster and will not end well. Deutsche Bank reported that so far, Trump’s trade war has cost the stock market $5 trillion. The war has put most American soybean farmers out of business, and the Chinese are now seeking or have found new sources in South America, so this is permanent damage to the US economy. The trade war has prompted the Chinese to resort to counter tariffs on gas, and this is a very big item and very costly because special LNG terminals for export to China have been built in the US southern states and now they will probably never be used, or at least not to anywhere near full capacity. A recent article in a Russian site reports that the Russian company Power of Siberia is about to finish laying a pipeline to China and that will be used to buy the amounts of gas that China will no longer buy from the US, and the cost will be less. Of course, this fits in nicely with the Sino-Russian war on the US dollar because none of the settlements in this trade deal will be made in dollars. International trade settlements made in non-dollar currencies tend to reduce the value of the USD. This is a win-win for Russia and China and a major loss to the US. The war on Huawei is especially critical because it is expected to affect US tech companies. For example, there are warnings that whole networks built by Huawei will have to be torn down at a high cost to the US and China both. So far, tech stocks have lost at least $1 trillion. Prior to the war on China, Trump and Congress banned imports from the Russian aluminium company Rusal. The problem was that this company made primary Al products, ie, mostly ingots, which were sold at reasonable prices to US secondary producers which processed them into sheets, tubes, forgings, etc. The US manufacturers warned Congress and Trump not to do ban Rusal products because it would threaten their livelihood. But the US government does not seek to solve real world problems. It only seeks votes and support for its ideology (which currently is focused almost solely on opposing other countries, not on solving internal economic problems — a very dangerous way to run a government). So the government simply ignored these distress calls from US manufacturers and blundered ahead with the ban. A few months later, the US companies sent their balance sheets to Congress showing that they were going bankrupt as a result of the ban. At that point, someone in Congress with a few brain cells left decided the ban had to be lifted. After wreaking havoc with US industry for months, the ban was finally lifted, but the losses left their mark. It is remarkable that, after all these disasters, Trump has never stopped or slowed down his trade wars. He seems incapable of learning lessons. Even before the trade wars started, almost every prominent economist was warning that these tariffs would not benefit the US. Their warnings are coming true. 5. https://es.quora.com/Qu%C3%A9-dijo-Guaid%C3%B3-Se-est%C3%A1-negociando-la-salida-de-Maduro-o-no-en-Oslo/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1 What did Guaidó say? Is he negotiating the ouster of Maduro or not, in Oslo? ¿Qué dijo Guaidó? ¿Se está negociando la salida de Maduro o no, en Oslo? Vince Dhimos, jefe de redacción en www.NewSilkStrategies.com (2015-presente) Se ha respondido hace 4 minutos Translation of my response: According to Article 233 of the constitution of Venezuela, the president of the National Assembly does not have the right to assume the presidency. The person entitle to assume the presidency in the absolute absence of the president is the vice president of the Republic. That would be Delcy Rodriguez. Here is a copy of the relevant parts of the constitution. "When there is an absolute absence of the President of the Republic during the first four years of the constitutional term, a new universal and direct election shall be held within the following thirty consecutive days. While the new President is elected and takes office, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President shall be responsible for the Presidency of the Republic. " "If the absolute absence occurs during the last two years of the constitutional term, the Executive Vice President or Executive Vice President shall assume the Presidency of the Republic until the completion thereof." As we see from the above, Guaidó has no right to negotiate with Maduro because he has no constitutional power whatsoever. Besides, the president of the US has no jurisdiction in Venezuela and has no right to interpret the Venezuelan constitution. Therefore, Trump and the heads of other allied nations have no right to declare that Guaidó is the interim president and they have no right to declare that Maduro is a dictator. Only the people of Venezuela have this right, and they have not declared unanimously that Maduro is a dictator. In fact, no referendum has been held in this issue.
Comments
|
