So sue them!:>)

I would like to point out something I learned in economics.

Inelastic supply and inelastic demand make for very high price swings. As neither the consumer or the supplier has real control price goes all over the place.

Suppliers, once the oil is tapped, it is coming out. Standard oil knew this and used it to bankrupt many other oil companies.

Consumers, once you build up your life around oil, when it goes you are screwed.

This is what gave OPEC power, being able to control supply, and therefore prices very keenly. Hopefully now oil is more elastic than before. (even though i have seen articles saying its more inelastic.)

More stellar legislation by our new improved Democratic led house. What a collection of pandering morons!

hi black-dog - you say

Suppose the U.S. actually DOES sue OPEC for price-fixing

well for one -I've heard they (the US that is) will go after OPEC assets in the US.If that happens - anything from your proposals may kick in, and it will not be for the better of the US- thats for sure.

I think we need to add a 7th point to your list, and by chance the number 7 - is sort of magic in this regard ...

7) has God stopped blessing America?

God bless THE world

6. Number four above by doing this: Put on a "lawsuit settlement payment surcharge" onto fuel exported to anybody who sues them. And then add in a "Saudi Aramco pre-nationalization compensation surcharge."

6. None of the above. Not one of the actions you list would be practical, effective or beneficial to the OPEC countries.

First, there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that OPEC countries sell oil in dollars. It is clear that they price oil in dollars, but that is only a measurement. I have asked many times for evidence that Euro nations, say France, changes Euro into dollars then use those dollars to buy oil. I'm still waiting.

It is far more likely that France buys x barrels of oil and pays in Euros at the rate of x * oil price in dollars * dollar/Euro exchange rate. This is the way it is with every product in the world. You can only set a price in one currency, but can settle in whatever way is mutually agreed upon by both parties.

Sure, OPEC countries could sell US assets (bonds, etc.). Yes, this would hurt the US badly and cause the dollar to fall. It is the long term holdings of dollar assets, not the oil price that supports the value of the dollar.

But it is much more complex than that. First start with why OPEC countries hold these assets in the first place: because it is beneficial for them. So inherently any other use of their capital is a second best choice. If they sold dollar assets, they would have to buy an enormous amount of assets in Euros. Since the Euro market is less deep this would not be easy. Yen would be even harder and there are no where near enough assets available in other currencies, nor are they liquid enough.

The OPEC countries would also lose a fortune in transaction costs moving from one currency to another. Then the Euro would shoot up, making European exports expensive and damaging their economies. Also a huge number of investors would gladly sell expensive Euro assets and use those profits to buy now deflated US assets. The net results would be that OPEC countries lose money on the transactions, wind up with an unbalanced investment portfolio and destroy the economies of their customers.

Those that bought from them, sold to them or earned fees on the transactions would be very, very happy. Since I would be in that group, I wish your idea made sense. But it doesn't.

This comment by PeakOil Tarzan should be broadcast on every TV station, printed in every newspaper and magazine and taught verbatim to every school child in the western world. It is a perfect summation of the situation.

(Maybe the word "ragheads" needs toning down somewhat athough I appreciate it was used in irony)

Some American behaviours, like those of the aforementioned senators, remind me of the following quote from the little kid in 1999's movie The Sixth Sense.

"Walking around like regular people... They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead"

Actually didn't you know, John Stossel knows far more about economics, history and world geopolitcs than Bill Gates?

Gates spoke at Harvard recently, urging graduating students to take on the "world's deepest inequities [including] world hunger ... the scarcity of clean water ... children who die from diseases we can cure". All of us want those problems solved, and through their charitable foundation, Gates and his wife, Melinda, have certainly put their money where their mouths are. But Gates seems unaware that these problems can't be eliminated in the simplistic way he advocates.

He told the grads, "The market did not reward saving the lives of these children [in poor countries], and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system."

What is Gates talking about?

Can he name one poor country that permits the free market to operate? The problem is not that the market doesn't make it profitable to save lives -- it most certainly does. The problem is that Third World countries have overbearing, corrupt governments that are obstacles to private property and freedom. That's why the children's parents have no voice or power.

Stossel smarter than Gates? Give me a break...

... for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. -- Kurt Vonnegut

What you are pointing out is called 'the Carter doctrine' and has been US policy since FDR visited the royalty of SA after WW2. Carter simply said (paraphrase) that any action by any foreign government that would interfere with oil supplies from the mid east reaching America would be considered aggression against the US. The earlier FDR agreement between SA and the US was an agreement that SA would only accept USDs in exchange for their oil and in return we would guarantee their sovereignty from without and within. After WW2 the Brits were still the protectors of the mid east oil untill 1968 when they could no longer get it done. Then it was turn for our watch to begin. Nothing changed much untill the current idealogues decided to change Americas foreign policy from one of containment and balancing of powers in the mid east to one of 'democratizing Iraq and in succession other axis of evil states in the mid east.' That decision set down in a document called the 'project for a new American century' has led to the situation as it exists in the mid east today.

Hirsch is probably thinking that the U.S. post-peak coal stampede is now officially underway with efforts to provide massive tax breaks to the coal industry at the expense of big oil.

half full
- it will be tried in one of them new courts i Disney-Land where Donald D. Bush will judge alongside Micky M Cheney and Daisyleesa Rice - and the verdict ?

Welcome to the graceful court of looneytown - the place where justice is served - so help me ....

:)

Trading partners argue, fight, sue, and even have trade wars all the time. The world doesn't end.